LIBRARY 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 

SANTA  BARBARA 


PRESENTED  BY 

MRS.    MACKINLEY   HELM 


International  ZEbeoIOQical 


EDITED  BY 

CHARLES  A.  BRIGGS,  D.D., 

Ethuard  Robinson  Professor  of  Biblical  Theology,  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York; 


STEWART  D.  F.  SALMOND,  D.D., 

Pro/etior  o/  Systematic  Theology  and  Neva  Testament  Exegetit, 
Frtt  Church  College,  Aberdeen. 


OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY. 
BY   PROF.  HENRY  PRESERVED   SMITH,  D.D. 


INTERNATIONAL  THEOLOGICAL  LIBRARY 


OLD     TESTAMENT 

/ 

HISTOBY 


BT 


HENRY   PRESERVED   SMITH,   D.D. 

PKOFK88OR  or  BIBLICAL  HISTORY  AND  INTERPRETATION 


IN  AMHKR8T  COLLEGE 


NEW   YORK 
CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 


COPYRIGHT,  1903,  BY 
CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 


Reprinted  March,  1929 


Printed  in  the  United  States  of  America 


tro 

ARTHUR   CUSHMAN  McGIFFERT 

IN   MEMORY   OF  THE   YEARS 

1888  TO    1893 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PACK 

I.  THE  SOURCES i 

II.  THE  ORIGINS 11 

III.  THE  PATRIARCHS      ....*..  35 

IV.  EGYPT  AND  THE  DESERT 52 

V.  THE  CONQUEST 73 

VI.  THE  HEROES 87 

VII.  THE  EARLY  MONARCHY 106 

VIII.  DAVID 129 

IX.  SOLOMON 156 

X.  FROM  JEROBOAM  TO  JEHU 177 

XI.  THE  HOUSE  OF  JEHU 198 

XII.  THE  FALL  OF  SAMARIA 219 

XIII.  HEZEKIAH  AND  MANASSEH 238 

XIV.  JOSIAH   AND   HIS   SONS 260 

XV.  THE  EXILE 301 

XVI.  THE  TEMPLE  REBUILT 344 

XVII.  NEHEMIAH  AND  AFTER 382 

XVIII.  THE  GREEK  PERIOD 413 

XIX.  A  NEW  HEROIC  AGE 441 

XX.  THE  PRIEST-KINGS 47<> 

CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLE 499 

INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 503 

INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE  PASSAGES     .       .       .        .  5'° 


PREFACE 

THE  purpose  of  the  present  volume  is  to  put  into  narrative 
form  the  results  of  recent  Old  Testament  study.  The  book  might 
have  been  called  a  History  of  Israel ;  but  that  title  would  indicate 
that  the  subject  was  treated  in  its  relation  to  the  general  history  of 
mankind,  whereas  for  a  series  of  theological  handbooks  it  should 
be  treated  in  its  relation  to  our  religion.  From  the  beginning 
the  Christian  Church  has  assigned  special  importance  to  the  body 
of  writings  which  we  call  the  Old  Testament — Old  Covenant 
would  perhaps  be  a  better  title.  To  understand  these  writings  is 
one  of  the  first  aims  of  theological  study,  and  the  endeavour  to 
understand  them  has  given  rise  to  a  number  of  separate  sciences 
— Old  Testament  Introduction,  Philology,  Geography,  Chronol- 
ogy, Biblical  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  others.  In 
our  time  it  has  become  increasingly  clear  that  no  literature  (and 
the  Old  Testament  is  first  of  all  a  literature)  can  be  understood 
without  tracing  the  process  of  growth  by  which  it  came  into 
being.  The  immense  critical  labour  that  has  been  expended  on 
the  Old  Testament  of  late  years  is  motived  by  a  desire  to  discover 
the  stages  of  growth  by  which  this  literature  became  what  it  is. 

For  the  understanding  of  the  literature  we  cannot  stop  with 
the  investigation  of  purely  literary  questions.  Criticism  is  a 
means  to  something  beyond  itself.  The  results  of  critical  in- 
quiry must  be  brought  into  relation  with  each  other  by  a  con- 
structive reproduction  of  what  has  actually  taken  place  in  the 
past  ;  in  other  words,  criticism  must  result  in  history  before  it 
can  be  considered  complete.  It  follows  that  every  new  advance 
in  criticism  involves  a  rewriting  of  history.  Otherwise  it  would 
be  presumptuous  to  do  again  what  has  already  been  so  often  done 
before.  As  in  what  we  call  secular  history  new  treatises  are 

vii 


Vlll  PREFACE 

poured  from  the  press  year  by  year,  so  it  must  be  with  Biblical 
and  ecclesiastical  history.  No  science  is  ever  complete,  and  Bib- 
lical science  is  no  exception  to  the  rule.  The  new  and  in  some 
respects  startling  results  of  recent  Biblical  science  call  for  a  new 
historical  reconstruction.  In  recognising  the  necessity  thus  laid 
upon  them,  Old  Testament  students  only  put  themselves  in  line 
with  students  in  other  branches  of  learning.  Every  other  history 
is  rewritten  as  often  as  the  documents  on  which  it  is  founded  are 
seen  in  a  new  light ;  Old  Testament  history  cannot  be  an  ex- 
ception. 

Minute  and  careful  study  of  the  Old  Testament  is  no  new 
thing ;  it  has  been  carried  on  in  every  age  since  the  time  of  the 
Apostles.  Especially  in  the  Protestant  Church  during  the  seven- 
teenth century  it  was  pursued  with  a  thoroughness  and  devotion 
which  are  beyond  praise.  What  distinguishes  the  work  of  our 
own  day  from  that  so  laboriously  carried  on  in  earlier  times  is 
the  new  point  of  view.  There  was  a  time  when,  for  theological 
study  at  least,  the  work  of  the  critic  consisted  mainly  in  settling 
the  meaning  of  each  separate  Biblical  statement.  Each  dictum 
was  then  reckoned  with  in  its  isolation,  as  an  authentic  declaration 
of  truth.  In  our  day  we  find  it  impossible  to  content  ourselves 
with  this  method  of  treatment.  We  cannot  feel  that  we  under- 
stand a  Biblical  statement  when  we  know  simply  what  it  says. 
We  are  constantly  going  behind  the  word  to  the  personality  of 
the  author ;  we  inquire  concerning  his  times,  his  circumstances, 
his  ideals,  his  relation  to  his  predecessors,  his  place  in  the  chain 
of  development.  As  we  do  not  fully  assure  ourselves  that  our 
own  recollections  mean  what  we  think  they  mean  unless  we  can 
bring  them  into  harmonious  relations  of  time  and  space  with 
other  recollections,  so  it  is  with  the  traditions  of  the  past — we 
must  know  not  only  what  was  at  a  certain  date,  but  also  how  it 
is  related  to  what  came  before  and  after. 

Historical  criticism  is  simply  the  careful  examination  of  the 
facts  of  tradition  in  order  to  bring  them  into  harmonious  relation. 
It  has  always  been  exercised  by  reflecting  men  when  they  endeav- 


PREFACE  ix 

cured  to  ascertain  what  had  taken  place  in  earlier  ages.  It  is 
only  within  recent  times,  however,  that  criticism  has  been  de- 
veloped into  a  science.  This  is  due  partly  to  the  increased 
systematisation  of  all  branches  of  inquiry,  partly  to  the  discovery 
that  all  ancient  documents  must  be  subjected  to  the  same  process 
before  they  can  be  made  to  yield  assured  historical  data.  This 
necessity  arises  first  from  the  constant  intrusion  of  error  in  the 
process  of  transmission.  The  scribes  to  whom  we  owe  the  pres- 
ervation of  all  ancient  books  can  make  no  claim  to  infallibility. 
Mistakes  in  copying,  in  editing,  in  compiling,  are  liable  to  occur 
at  every  stage  of  the  process  of  transmission.  So  far  as  our  evi- 
dence concerning  the  past  is  contained  in  written  documents  it 
cannot  be  used  until  these  mistakes  are  removed.  Their  removal 
is  the  object  of  textual  criticism.  For  a  long  time  scholars  were 
not  disposed  to  concede  that  the  Old  Testament  was  in  need  of 
textual  criticism.  For  reasons  which  we  easily  understand,  and 
which  indeed  command  our  sympathy,  the  Word  of  God  (as  the 
Bible  was  somewhat  inexactly  called)  was  supposed  to  be  exempt 
from  the  ordinary  tendencies  of  manuscript  transmission.  But 
at  the  present  time  the  large  majority  of  scholars  find  it  necessary 
to  examine  the  Old  Testament  text  by  the  same  methods  which 
are  applied  to  other  ancient  documents.  It  needs  no  demonstra- 
tion that  the  historian  must  be  familiar  with  these  methods,  and 
that  he  cannot  use  the  Old  Testament  text  except  as  it  has  been 
subjected  to  them. 

The  line  between  textual  and  historical  criticism  (the  higher  crit- 
icism as  it  is  usually  called)  is  not  easily  drawn,  and  indeed  there 
isno  sharp  line  of  demarcation  between  them.  The  higher  criticism 
is  simply  the  process  of  examining  and  weighing  the  evidence  in 
our  hands.  This  evidence  may  be  in  the  form  of  tradition,  that 
is,  documents  which  profess  to  tell  us  what  has  taken  place,  or 
in  the  form  of  monuments  which  indicate  what  has  taken  place 
without  the  direct  purpose  of  describing  it.  Evidently  a  docu- 
ment which  contains  a  tradition  is  also  a  monument  of  the  time 
when  the  tradition  took  shape.  Evidence  concerning  the  past, 


X  PREFACE 

whether  direct  (traditional)  or  circumstantial  (monumental), 
must  be  interrogated  before  it  can  be  used.  For  the  danger  of 
misapprehension  is  as  constant  a  factor  here  as  is  the  danger  of  cor- 
ruption in  the  case  of  manuscript  transmission.  To  understand 
our  tradition,  to  date  and  locate  our  monuments — this  is  the  ob- 
ject of  the  higher  criticism.  As  applied  to  the  Bible  it  is  the 
same  science  which  is  constantly  used  in  examining  other  histori- 
cal documents. 

The  beginnings  of  Biblical  higher  criticism  may  be  traced  to 
Ibn  Ezra,  to  Spinoza,  with  more  justice  to  Astruc,  as  the  be- 
ginnings of  Biblical  textual  criticism  may  be  traced  to  Cappel, 
Morin,  and  Simon.  But  it  is  only  within  the  last  forty  years  that 
both  sciences  have  been  recognised  among  English-speaking 
scholars.  This  period  has  been  a  period  of  conflict,  but  now  the 
recognition  of  the  validity  of  criticism  in  both  kinds  may  be  said 
to  be  complete.  In  the  domain  of  the  higher  criticism  the  result 
has  been  to  show  the  extraordinary  complexity  of  the  problems 
with  which  we  have  to  deal.  What  we  seek  to  do  is  to  date  the 
documents,  analyse  them  where  they  are  composite,  estimate  the 
personality  of  the  writers,  and  arrange  the  results  into  a  consistent 
picture.  The  complexity  of  the  material  ought  not  to  surprise 
us.  The  Bible  is  a  book  of  edification,  and  a  book  of  edification 
must  be  recast  in  order  to  meet  the  wants  of  an  age  different  from 
the  one  for  which  it  was  first  written.  The  Old  Testament  has 
gone  through  this  process  more  than  once ;  what  modern  scholars 
seek  to  attain  by  notes  and  comments,  ancient  scribes  sought  to 
attain  by  insertions  and  changes  in  the  text.  These  repeated 
modifications  of  the  text — redactions,  combinations,  glosses — are 
the  first  object  of  the  historian's  interest,  for  they  are  the  marks  of 
the  historical  process  which  he  seeks  to  reconstruct.  It  is  the 
realisation  of  this  fact  which  makes  the  Old  Testament  study  of 
to-day  so  different  from  the  Old  Testament  study  of  fifty  years 
ago. 

It  may  be  objected  that  if  the  problem  be  indeed  so  complex 
the  historian  should  suspend  his  labours,  and  that  he  should  not 


PREFACE  XI 

write  the  history  till  the  critical  work  is  all  done.  But  it  is  a  mis- 
take to  suppose  that  the  constructive  work  can  wait  till  the  crit- 
icism is  complete.  The  constructive  work  is  itself  necessary  to  the 
critic.  If  history  is  based  on  criticism,  criticism  is  tested  by  history. 
Criticism  dates  the  documents ;  history  arranges  the  testimony  of 
the  documents  according  to  the  scheme  presented  by  criticism.  If 
the  resulting  picture  is  inharmonious,  out  of  proportion,  or  unnat- 
ural, it  becomes  evident  that  the  criticism  has  been  incomplete  or 
one-sided.  The  analysis  of  the  critic  must  constantly  be  checked  by 
the  historian's  synthesis.  Moreover,  the  historical  presentation  is 
needed  to  guard  the  critic  from  too  great  subjectivity.  His 
danger  is  that  in  the  details  of  the  critical  examination  he  may 
forget  the  larger  whole  with  which  he  has  to  deal.  So  far  as  there 
is  any  justification  for  the  charge  that  the  higher  critics  are  nega- 
tive and  destructive,  it  will  be  found  in  the  fact  that  one  and  an- 
other has  neglected  to  test  his  results  by  a  positive  combination 
of  them  in  historic  form.  When  the  results  are  fairly  tested  by 
such  a  constructive  use  of  them,  they  will  be  seen  not  only  to 
further  a  correct  appreciation  of  the  individual  documents  or 
monuments,  but  also  to  give  a  more  intelligible  presentation  of 
the  whole  subject  with  which  they  deal.1 

As  in  all  other  history,  so  in  Old  Testament  history,  what  in- 
terests us  is  the  stream  or  movement  of  which  the  isolated  facts 
are  indications.  In  endeavouring  to  form  a  clear  conception  of 
this  stream  or  movement,  we  are  constantly  compelled  to  lament 
the  paucity  of  our  materials.  What  we  wish  to  reproduce  is  the 
process  which  extended  over  a  thousand  years,  and  we  have  as 

1  The  most  complete  discussion  of  the  relation  between  criticism  and  his- 
tory may  be  found  in  Bernheim,  Lehrbuch  der  historischen  Methode*  (1903). 
The  lectures  of  Freeman,  Methods  of  Historical  Study,  contain  valuable 
hints,  but  fall  far  short  of  a  systematic  discussion.  A  suggestive  little  book 
is  Droysen,  Gundriss  det  Historik,  published  in  English  translation  by  E. 
Benjamin  Andrews,  Outline  of  the  Principles  of  History  (1893).  On  the 
progress  of  critical  study  as  applied  to  the  Bible  (especially  the  Old  Testa- 
ment) the  reader  should  consult  the  preface  to  Driver,  Introduction  to  the 
Literature  of  the  Old  Testament w  (1902). 


Xl'l  PREFACE 

its  evidence  fragments  sufficient  to  fill  only  one  moderate-sized 
volume.  Additional  and  welcome  light  is  given  by  the  records 
of  Assyria,  Babylonia,  Egypt,  and  Persia.  This  light,  however, 
does  not  prove  what  it  is  sometimes  claimed  to  prove ;  it  does  not 
show  that  Israel  was  merely  a  part  (and  an  insignificant  part)  of 
those  great  empires,  and  therefore  that  it  has  no  history  of  its 
own.  The  political  insignificance  of  Israel  may  be  readily  ad- 
mitted. But  the  intellectual  and  spiritual  life  of  Israel  is  a  dis- 
tinct entity,  standing  out  apart  from  the  life  of  the  surrounding 
nations.  This  life  which  has  made  so  distinct  a  contribution  to 
civilisation  must  be  understood  from  its  own  monuments,  and 
can  be  understood  from  this  source  alone.  It  can  be  so  under- 
stood, and  the  paucity  of  the  remains  which  have  come  down  to 
us  should  not  discourage  us.  Critical  inquirers  have  sometimes 
fallen  into  an  exaggerated  scepticism,  as  though  nothing  could  be 
certainly  known  concerning  antiquity — was  not  the  theory  once 
propounded  that  all  the  Greek  and  Latin  texts  in  our  hands  were 
forgeries  of  the  monks  in  the  Middle  Age?  But  such  scepticism 
is  unwarranted ;  the  documents  in  our  hands,  fragmentary  though 
they  be,  are  facts,  and  it  ought  to  be  possible  to  interpret  their 
testimony.  The  footprint  in  the  sand  on  Robinson  Crusoe's 
island  was  a  fragmentary  monument  indeed,  but  it  gave  evidence 
that  was  unmistakable,  and  it  gave  its  interpreter  many  an  uneasy 
hour  because  of  the  distinctness  of  its  message. 

It  is  evident  that  no  one  man  can  perform  all  the  labor  of  criti- 
cism and  at  the  same  time  carry  on  all  the  lines  of  investigation, 
archaeological,  geographical,  and  chronological.  The  worker  in 
this  field  is  one  out  of  many,  each  one  of  whom  is  eager  to  make 
use  of  the  results  already  obtained  in  order  to  make  further  dis- 
coveries. The  constructive  worker  is  engaged  in  a  process  of 
selection  ;  he  must  constantly  ask  himself  which  of  the  so-called 
results  is  reliably  established,  which  is  only  probable,  which  is 
too  uncertain  to  build  upon.  The  first  requisite  of  the  historian, 
therefore,  is  soundness  of  judgment.  It  is,  indeed,  impossible  to 
get  along  without  hypotheses — our  science  is  in  line  with  othex 


PREFACE  Xlll 

sciences  in  this  respect.  But  hypotheses  differ  widely  among 
themselves.  The  ability  to  judge  them  soberly  is  of  the  first  im- 
portance. 

The  ideal  historian,  therefore  (in  my  judgment),  is  the  one 
who  is  able  to  distinguish  degrees  of  probability.  To  this  must 
be  added  the  ability  to  tell  what  he  knows.  What  the  specialist 
knows,  his  readers  have  a  right  to  know.  They  have  a  right  to 
see  the  picture  which  he  sees,  and  to  see  it  in  the  way  in  which  he 
sees  it.  It  has  already  become  clear  to  us  that  a  historical  picture 
is  made  up  of  probabilities.  Some  of  these  probabilities  stand 
out  with  a  distinctness  which  is  practical  certainty.  That  David 
reigned  over  Israel,  that  Isaiah  preached  in  Jerusalem,  that  Judas 
Maccabeus  fought  against  the  Gentiles — these  are  things  which  I 
can  affirm  with  as  little  reserve  as  I  affirm  that  twice  two  is  four. 
I  have  the  right  and  it  is  my  duty,  in  making  a  historical  picture, 
to  draw  these  figures  upon  my  canvas  as  firmly  and  distinctly  as  I 
can  draw  them.  But  as  we  fill  in  the  picture,  we  are  conscious 
that  many  details  must  be  less  sharply  outlined  ;  some  are  in  the 
shadow  so  deeply  that  we  barely  make  them  out.  The  successful 
historian  I  take  to  be  the  one  who  is  able  to  reproduce  the  lights 
and  shadows  so  that  his  readers  will  be  able  to  see  the  picture  just 
as  he  sees  it.  To  do  this  without  the  monotonous  and  irritating 
repetition  of  "  perhaps,"  "  probably,"  or  "it  seems  to  me,"  is 
a  matter  of  no  little  difficulty.  Happy  is  the  man  who  is  able  to 
feel  that  he  has  solved  the  problem  with  even  a  moderate  degree 
of  success. 

The  interest  in  history  is  as  old  as  the  Bible  itself,  as  old  as 
the  oldest  parts  of  the  Bible,  in  fact.  For  we  find  among  the 
earliest  documents  in  Hebrew  literature  the  songs  and  stories 
which  rehearse  the  righteous  acts  of  Yahweh,  or  which  celebrate 
the  deeds  of  Israel's  heroes.  We  must  not  confound  this  interest 
in  history  with  the  interest  felt  by  the  modern  student.  Interest 
in  history  as  history  is  a  matter  of  comparatively  recent  growth. 
The  earliest  authors  or  singers  were  under  the  influence  of 
patriotic  or  religious  enthusiasm.  And  yet  it  does  not  seem  forced 


XIV  PREFACE 

when  we  say  that  the  ancient  and  the  modern  motives  are  not 
far  apart.  The  ancient  writer  was  sure  that  he  was  setting  forth 
God's  working  for  His  people;  the  modern  historian  sets  forth 
what  has  taken  place  in  the  hope  of  discovering  the  law  of  human 
progress.  The  latter  is  broader  and  more  philosophical  in  his 
views ;  the  former  is  more  distinctly  didactic  in  his  tone.  But 
the  underlying  motives  are  not  very  different.  The  narrative 
which  was  compiled  from  Israel's  folk-stories,  and  which  now  fills 
the  first  section  of  our  Old  Testament,  shows  a  genuine  historic 
and  philosophic  interest.  It  is  interesting  to  note  even  in  the 
Bible  itself  the  tendency  to  rewrite  history  to  meet  the  views  of 
succeeding  generations ;  for  the  narrative  of  the  earlier  books 
was  recast  by  the  Chronicler  to  meet  the  needs  of  his  own  time. 
If  criticism  needed  any  justification  it  would  find  it  in  this  prece- 
dent. 

The  first  attempt  to  write  a  history  of  Israel,  made  in  post-Bib- 
lical times,  was  that  of  Josephus  in  his  Antiquities.  This  author 
was,  no  doubt,  moved  by  a  desire  to  emulate  the  Greek  and  Latin 
historians  with  whose  works  he  had  become  acquainted  during  his 
years  of  residence  at  Rome.  But  with  this  personal  ambition 
there  was  a  concurrent  motive.  The  proud  Jew  was  stung  by  the 
taunts  levelled  at  his  race  by  the  anti-Semites  of  that  day.  He 
would  answer  them  by  showing  that  the  career  of  Israel  was  no 
whit  inferior  in  interest  and  importance  to  that  of  any  other 
nation  of  antiquity.  Josephus  was  not  alone  in  this  ambition. 
Justus  of  Tiberias,  a  contemporary  of  his,  had  the  same  ambition 
and  wrote  a  history  of  the  Hebrew  kings  from  Moses  to  Agrippa. 
He  was  less  fortunate  than  his  rival,  for  his  work  early  fell  into 
oblivion.1 

The  Christian  Church  received  the  Old  Testament  from  the 
Jews,  first  of  all,  as  containing  a  divine  revelation,  and  therefore 
as  profitable  for  instruction  in  righteousness.  It  was  for  this  rea- 

1  The  most  complete  bibliography  of  Josephus,  with  a  characterisation  of 
the  man  and  of  his  different  works,  is  that  of  Schiirer,  Geschichte  des  Jiid- 
itcken  Volkei '  (1901),  I,  pp.  74-106.  On  Justus  of  Tiberias,  ibid. ,  pp.  58-63 


PREFACE  XV 

son.  and  not  with  any  distinctly  historical  interest,  that  these 
books  were  read  in  the  public  assemblies  as  well  as  studied  in 
private.  Still  there  was  a  vague  notion  of  historic  progress  in 
the  Christian  distinction  between  the  old  dispensation  and  the 
new.  We  are  not  surprised  to  find  a  New  Testament  writer  con- 
trasting the  partial  and  fragmentary  revelation  of  God  in  the 
prophets  with  the  full  revelation  in  Christ,  and  we  recognise  a 
real  though  rudimentary  historic  sense  in  such  a  contrast.  But 
in  the  first  centuries  the  historic  interest  was  crowded  out  by 
others  more  pressing.  On  the  one  hand,  the  allegorical  interpre- 
tation, already  in  vogue  among  the  Jews,  led  to  the  search  for 
mystical  or  theosophic  revelations,  and  clouded  the  real  historic 
meaning  of  the  text.  On  the  other  hand,  the  attack  made  upon 
the  Church  by  Jew  and  Gentile  brought  apologetics  to  the  front, 
and  emphasised  philosophy  rather  than  history. 

Still  the  apologetic  need  resulted  after  a  time  in  turning  atten- 
tion to  history.  The  Greeks  and  Romans  had  their  histories 
which  were  seen  not  to  be  in  harmony  with  the  scheme  presented 
in  the  Biblical  books.  There  was  laid  upon  Christian  writers 
much  the  same  necessity  which  had  been  felt  by  Josephus  ;  they 
were  challenged  to  reconcile  the  Scripture  account  of  antiquity 
with  those  current  among  the  Gentiles.  They  felt  that  they 
must,  if  possible,  show  the  superiority  of  the  sacred  books. 
Julius  Africanus  is  said  first  to  have  given  attention  to  this  mat- 
ter. The  result  was  his  Chronographia,  in  which  the  Hebrew 
data  were  combined  with  those  of  Gentile  writers.  This  work 
has  been  described  as  a  handbook  of  universal  history  on  the  basis 
of  the  Biblical  narrative.  It  has  perished,  except  fragments,  but 
it  was  the  model  after  which  many  histories  of  the  world  were 
shaped,  and  the  fashion  has  continued  almost  down  to  our  own 
time.1  Among  the  followers  of  Julius  Africanus,  the  most  im- 
portant is  Eusebiusof  Caesarea,  who  wrote  a  book  entitled  Chron- 
ica.  This  work  avows  its  apologetic  purpose  on  its  first  page. 

1  Details  may  be  read  in  Wachsmuth,  Einleitung  in  das  Studium  del 
alten  Geschichte  (1895),  pp.  155-158. 


XVI*  .  PREFACE 

It  gives  parallel  accounts  of  the  history  of  the  early  ages,  the 
Hebrew  narrative  (in  outline)  forming  one  section.  The  second 
part  of  the  work  is  taken  up  with  a  chronological  table,  beginning 
with  the  time  of  Abraham.  The  author  knows  of  the  diver- 
gences between  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  copies  of  the  Penta- 
teuch and  decides  in  favour  of  the  Greek.1 

About  the  year  400  of  our  era,  a  compendious  history  of  the 
world  was  written  by  Sulpicius  Severus  of  Gaul.8  Although  con- 
tinued down  to  the  author's  own  times,  this  work  might  almost 
be  called  the  first  Biblical  history.  More  than  three-fourths  of 
it  are  concerned  with  the  Old  Testament.  The  author  dates 
the  creation  six  thousand  years  before  his  own  time,  and  follows 
closely  the  narrative  of  the  Biblical  books.  His  work  is  said 
to  have  been  used  as  a  text-book  for  the  higher  institutions  of 
learning  in  the  Netherlands,  Germany,  and  France,  as  late  as  the 
seventeenth  century.  The  sketch  of  Old  Testament  history 
given  by  Augustine,  which  may  be  mentioned  in  connexion  with 
the  work  of  Sulpicius,  is  a  theological  rather  than  a  historical 
discussion.*  And,  as  is  well  known,  Augustine  was  the  leader  of 
the  Church  for  many  generations.  Mediaeval  study  of  the 
Scriptures  was  not  carried  on  to  learn  history  but  to  discover  sound 
doctrine — that  is,  to  justify  the  teaching  of  the  Church  and  its  insti- 
tutions. Where  the  allegorical  method  prevails  a  real  historical 
interest  cannot  assert  itself.  While  the  allegorical  method  suc- 
ceeded in  confirming  the  theology  of  the  Schoolmen,  the  literal 
interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament  was  admitted  so  far  as  it 

1  The  work  has  survived  in  an  Armenian  translation  ;  the  second  book 
also  in  the  Latin  translation  of  Jerome.  A  Latin  version  made  from  the 
Armenian  (by  Petermann)  was  published  together  with  some  Greek  frag- 
ments and  the  Latin  of  Jerome,  by  Schoene,  Eusebii  Chronicorum  Libri 
Duo  (1875).  Cf.  also  the  same  author's  critical  discussion,  Die  Wellckronik 
ties  Eusebius  (1900). 

1  Sulpicii  Severi  Chronicorum  Libri  Duo  in  the  Corpus  Scriptorum  Fecit' 
tiasticorum  Latinorum  (Vienna,  1866). 

•  De  Civitate  Dei,  XV-XVIII.  The  narrative  is  frequently  interrupted  by 
metaphysical  disquisitions  as  well  as  by  allegorical  "improvements." 


PREFACE  XVH 

confirmed  the  rights  and  prerogatives  of  the  ecclesiastical  orders. 
We  should  be  wrong  to  suppose  that  the  only  motives  for  study 
of  the  Scripture  were  these :  the  Church  always  more  or  less  dis- 
tinctly realised  that  it  was  called  to  teach.  The  Old  Testament 
always  had  an  immense  practical  interest ;  it  furnished  texts, 
examples,  and  illustrations  for  the  preacher.  But  we  can  hardly 
discover  in  either  of  these  methods  of  treatment  a  really  histor- 
ical interest. 

The  Reformation  emphasised  the  importance  of  the  Scrip- 
tures as  the  sole  authority  in  doctrine,  and  it  discarded  the  alle- 
gorical interpretation.  It  revived  the  Pauline  contrast  of  Law 
and  Gospel,  and  to  this  extent  quickened  the  historic  sense.  But 
the  study  of  Scripture  as  authority  still  interfered  with  its  study  as 
a  source  of  history,  though  the  emphasis  laid  upon  the  literal  sense 
contributed  in  the  long  run  to  a  better  historical  apprehension. 

The  full  force  of  the  Protestant  position  was  felt  in  the  seven- 
teenth century,  when  in  conjunction  with  a  renewed  activity  in 
all  departments  of  literature  the  Bible  received  more  exact  and 
careful  attention.  The  names  of  Cappel  and  Morin  in  textual 
criticism,  of  Hobbes,  Spinoza,  and  Richard  Simon  in  the  higher 
criticism,  belong  in  this  century.1  With  this  critical  activity 
we  find  more  attention  given  to  Biblical  history,  which,  how- 
ever, is  still  treated  as  the  introductory  part  of  Church  history. 
Of  the  seriousness  with  which  the  problems  were  attacked  we 
have  an  evidence  in  Usher's  discussion  of  Biblical  chronology, 
as  well  as  in  his  Annals.1  The  latter  work  reproduces  the  data 
of  the  Biblical  narrative  in  the  order  of  time,  beginning  with  the 
creation  of  the  world  "the  evening  before  October  23  in  the 
year  710  of  the  Julian  Period,"  4004  B.C.  Each  event  is  dated 

1  See  the  chapters  on  the  higher  criticism  and  on  the  history  of  Biblical 
History  in  Briggs,  General  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Holy  Scripture. 

1  Annales  Veteris  Testamenti  a  frima  Mundi  Origine  deducti  una  cum 
rerum  Aiiaticarum  und  rfLgypticarum  Chronico,  London,  1650,  reprinted 
in  the  collected  edition  of  his  works  (1847).  The  Chronologia  Sacra  may  b« 
found  in  volumes  XI  and  XII  of  the  same  edition. 


XV111  PREFACE 

from  this  era  of  the  creation.  Thus  the  Deluge  began  in  the  year 
1656,  Abraham  was  born  2008.  The  history  of  the  world  is 
divided  into  seven  periods,  of  which  six  had  elapsed  at  the  birth 
of  Christ.  The  author's  theological  interest  is  seen  in  his  intro- 
duction of  New  Testament  statements,  like  the  one  in  which  Paul 
says  (following  Rabbinical  tradition)  that  the  rock  from  which 
water  flowed  in  Horeb  followed  the  people  in  their  wanderings ; 
another  example  is  the  declaration  that  Joshua  is  a  type  of  Christ 
and  Canaan  the  type  of  the  heavenly  fatherland.  In  general, 
however,  allegory  is  avoided. 

The  historical  interest  of  this  work  is  seen  in  the  introduction 
of  Egyptian,  Babylon,  and  other  Gentile  kings  in  their  supposed 
proper  place  in  the  narrative.  Thus,  after  the  account  of  the 
exodus  of  Israel,  we  have  Manetho's  story  of  Egypt  under  Seso- 
this  (Sesostris)  ;  in  the  year  2737  A.M.  we  have  the  statement  of 
Herodotus  concerning  Ninus,  the  founder  of  the  Assyrian  empire. 
These  citations  from  Gentile  sources  become  more  numerous  later 
in  the  narrative,  so  that  the  work  may  be  said,  like  the  earlier 
ones  already  described,  to  give  us  universal  history  in  a  Biblical 
framework.  But  it  does  this  on  the  basis  of  a  fresh  study  of  the 
sources. 

The  work  of  Usher,  was,  perhaps,  the  most  important  on  this 
subject  published  between  the  Reformation  and  the  year  1750. 
Others  are  mentioned  by  the  bibliographers,  some  of  which  were 
sketches  of  Biblical  history  introductory  to  the  history  of  the 
Church,  others  were  theological  and  speculative  rather  than  his- 
torical. As  an  example  of  the  former  class  may  be  cited  Span- 
heim's  introduction  to  chronology  and  sacred  history ;  an  example 
of  the  latter  is  Heidegger's  "  History  of  the  Patriarchs."  *  The 
next  century  saw  the  "  Connexion  "  of  Prideaux,  which  treated 
an  important  period  of  Old  Testament  history,  and  which  still 

1  Spanheim,  Introductio  ad  Chronologiam  et  Historiam  Sacram  (1694); 
Heidegger,  De  Historia  Sacra  Patriarcharum  (1667).  Other  works  of  this 
period  are  catalogued  by  Diestel,  Geschichte  des  Altcn  Testametttes  in  def 
Christlichen  Kirche  (1869),  pp.  460-464. 


PREFACE  XIX 

has  value.  The  same  year  with  Prideaux's  work  was  published 
on  the  continent  an  "  Ecclesiastical  History  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment," by  Buddeus,  a  well-known  theologian.1  As  the  century 
advanced,  the  Deistic  controversy  gave  occasion  to  re-examine 
many  questions  in  Biblical  history,  though  here  again  the  pur- 
pose was  primarily  apologetic  or  polemic.* 

The  modern  period  of  Old  Testament  study  may  be  said  to 
date  from  Astruc's  "Conjectures,"  published  in  1753.  The 
preceding  literature  may  be  described  by  the  term  theological, 
on  the  Deistic  as  well  as  on  the  orthodox  side.  Astruc  marked 
an  epoch  (isolated  forerunners  have  already  been  mentioned), 
because  he  turned  attention  afresh  to  the  phenomena  of  the  Bible 
itself,  and  showed  how  many  of  these  had  escaped  attention. 
For  the  time  being,  this  caused  men  to  neglect  Biblical  history, 
for  the  critical  process  became  all  absorbing.  At  the  same  time 
philosophical  and  theological  discussion  became  more  active. 
French  scepticism  (Voltaire  is  the  best  example)  on  one  side, 
and  a  new  philosophy  (Kant)  on  the  other,  gave  the  defenders  of 
tradition  all  they  could  do.  The  result  was  to  make  the  time  a 
period  of  confusion  and  strife.  But  through  the  welter  a  more 
correct  apprehension  of  the  Old  Testament  gradually  worked  its 
way  to  the  front.  Eichhorn  is  the  best  example  of  real  critical 
advance,  while  Herder  pointed  the  way  to  a  more  sympathetic 
construction  of  Biblical  history.1 

1  Prideaux,  A  Historical  Connexion  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament!  (1715). 
The  work  was  primarily  intended  to  cover  the  (supposed)  period  between 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  but  begins  with  the  time  of  Ahaz.  It  sug- 
gested the  less  important  work  of  Shuckford,  The  Sacred  and  Profane 
History  of  the  World  Connected  (1727)  which  extends  from  the  creation  to 
the  exodus.  Buddeus,  Historia  Ecclesiastica  Veteris  Testamenti  (1715)  has 
gone  through  several  editions. 

'Although  published  a  little  later  than  the  period  we  are  discussing,  I 
may  mention  here  the  most  elaborate  refutation  of  the  Deistic  objections  to 
revelation:  Lilienthal,  Gute  Sache  der  Gottlichen  Offenbarung  (1760-1782) 
in  sixteen  volumes. 

'Eichhorn,  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  1780-83;  the   fourth  edt 


XX  PREFACE 

In  the  nineteenth  century  the  progress  of  our  science  is  marked 
by  two  great  names — Ewald  and  Wellhausen.  Ewald's  chief 
work l  contains  an  elaborate  criticism  of  the  sources,  as  well  as 
a  narrative  of  events  and  movements.  At  the  very  outset  the 
author  emphasises  the  necessity  of  distinguishing  the  story  from  its 
foundation,  that  is,  of  criticising  the  sources.  Ewald's  learning 
and  acuteness  are  unquestioned.  His  work  sometimes  repels  by 
its  dogmatism,  and,  as  we  now  know,  its  theory  of  the  docu- 
ments is  wrong.  But,  all  things  considered,  it  is  one  of  the 
most  influential  works  which  the  last  century  produced.  Its  re- 
sults were  popularised  in  England  and  America  by  Dean  Stan- 
ley's lectures  on  the  history  of  the  Jewish  Church.1  Other 
histories  by  German  scholars  in  this  period  are  either  based  on 
critical  hypotheses  similar  to  those  of  Ewald,  or  else  are  anticrit- 
ical  in  their  bias.  Among  the  former  may  be  mentioned  Hitzig 
and  Weber,  as  well  as  the  early  volumes  of  Gratz.*  Among  the 
latter  we  may  reckon  Hengstenberg,  Kurtz,  and  Kohler.4  Eng- 

tion  appeared  in  1823.  Herder,  Aelteste  Urkunde  des  Menschengeschlechts 
(1774);  Geist  der  Hebrdischen  Poesie  (1782).  Cf.  Briggs,  General  Intro- 
duction to  the  Study  of  Holy  Scripture  (1899),  chapter  XI,  Higher  Criticism 
of  the  Hexateuch  (1897),  chapters  III-VI. 

1  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  7  vols.,  1843  ff.  The  third  edition 
appeared  1864-1868.  An  English  translation  of  this  edition  was  published 
1869-1883.  The  Old  Testament  History  ends  with  Vol.  IV  of  the  German, 
Vol.  V  of  the  English  ;  the  remaining  volumes  treat  of  New  Testament  times. 

*  History  of  the  Jewish  Church,  3  vols.,  1863-1877. 

1  Hitzig,  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  1869 ;  Weber  und  Holtzmann, 
Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel  und  des  Entstehung  des  Christentums,  t  vols., 
1867;  Gratz,  Geschichte  der  Juden,  vols.  1-3,  1874. 

4  Hengstenberg,  Geschichte  des  Reiches  Gottes  unter  dent  alten  Bunde, 
1870;  Kurtz,  Geschichte  des  Alten  Bundes,  1848-1858;  English  transla- 
tion under  the  title,  History  of  the  Old  Covenant,  1859.  The  work  extends 
only  to  the  exodus.  Kohler's  book,  Biblische  Geschichte  des  Alten  Testa- 
ments (1875-1893),  is  valuable  for  its  full  bibliography.  The  author,  though 
conservative  in  his  predilections,  was  compelled,  by  his  sense  of  fairness,  to 
make  considerable  concessions  to  the  critics  in  the  course  of  his  work. 
Other  works  are  cited  in  Zockler,  Handbuch  der  Theologischen  Wissen- 
tchaften  (1883),  I,  p.  263  f. 


PREFACE  XXI 

lish  Biblical  scholarship  was  until  recently  almost  wholly  anti- 
critical.  Proof  may  be  found  in  the  works  of  William  Smith, 
Milman,  and  Edersheim.1 

A  distinct  epoch  is  marked  by  the  publication  of  Wellhausen's 
Prolegomena?  The  views  there  advanced  were  not  altogether 
new.  Reuss  had  held  (but  not  published)  them  as  early  as  1834, 
while  Graf  and  Kuenen  had  come  independently  to  the  same  con- 
clusions. But  the  brilliancy  of  Wellhausen's  style,  and  the  skill 
with  which  he  marshalled  his  arguments,  first  showed  the  strength 
of  the  position  which  he  maintained.  This  position  was  that  the 
Law  was  not  the  starting-point  but  the  culmination  of  Israel's 
development.  The  rapidity  with  which  this  thesis  was  accepted 
by  Old  Testament  scholars  was  nothing  less  than  revolutionary. 
Among  English-speaking  peoples  the  theory  of  Wellhausen  was 
set  forth  by  his  article  "Israel"  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Britan- 
nica,  and  by  the  lectures  of  W.  Robertson  Smith  on  the  Old 
Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,*  and  on  the  Prophets  of  Israel. 
From  the  Wellhausenian  point  of  view  a  number  of  histories  of 
Israel  have  been  published  within  the  last  twenty-five  years,  as 
well  as  a  larger  number  of  monographs  dealing  with  particular 
epochs  or  with  details  of  the  critical  inquiry.  The  following  list 
is  not  absolutely  complete,  but  contains  the  most  important  of 
the  histories : 

Wellhausen  himself  has  published  an  Israelitische  und  Judische 
Geschichte  which  may  be  supposed  to  represent  the  second  vol- 

1  William  Smith,  Student's  Old  Testament  History ;  Milman,  History 
*f  the  Jews,  3  vols.  (second  edition,  1863)  ;  Edersheim,  History  of  Israel  and 
Judah,  7  vols.  (1887). 

•The  original  title  was  Geschichte  Israels,  Band  I  (1878).  The  later 
editions  bear  the  title,  Prolegomena  tur  Geschichte  Israels.  The  work  is 
published  in  an  English  translation  in  a  volume  (which  contains  also  Well- 
hausen's article,  "Israel,"  from  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica),  entitled 
Prolegomena  to  the  History  of  Israel  (no  date). 

'First  delivered  in  Edinburgh  and  Glasgow  in  1881  and  published  the 
same  year;  second  edition,  1892.  The  Prophets  of  Israel  followed  in  1882; 
second  edition,  1897. 


XXli  PREFACE 

ume  of  the  work  of  which  the  Prolegomena  was  the  first.  This 
volume  appeared  in  1894,  and  has  passed  through  several 
editions. 

Stade,  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  1881-1888.  The  latter 
part  of  the  history  was  written  by  Oskar  Holtzmann.  Next  to 
Wellhausen's  works  this  is  the  most  important  treatise  which  has 
yet  appeared  on  the  subject.  It  is  enriched  with  maps,  plans, 
fac -similes,  and  illustrations. 

Kuenen's  works  on  the  Religion  of  Israel  and  on  the  Prophets 
are  in  the  domain  of  Biblical  theology,  but  their  historical  bear- 
ings are  important. 

Reuss,  Geschichte  der  Heiligen  Schriften  alien  Testaments 
(1881)  is  nominally  a  history  of  the  literature.  In  fact,  it  treats 
the  history  of  the  people  and  the  history  of  the  literature  together 
in  a  suggestive  and  attractive  manner. 

Renan,  Histoire  du  Peuple  d*  Israel,  1887-1893;  English 
translation  1888-1895.  Renan's  brilliancy  of  style  is  well 
known.  His  critical  point  of  view  is  nearer  that  of  Ewald  than 
that  of  Wellhausen. 

Kittel,  Geschichte  der  Hebrder,  1888-1892.  English  transla- 
tion, History  of  the  Hebrews,  2  vols.,  1895.  This  history  ex- 
tends to  the  capture  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadrezzar.  The  author 
gives  a  considerable  part  of  his  attention  to  the  discussion  of  crit- 
ical questions,  in  which  he  agrees  more  nearly  with  Dillmann  than 
with  Wellhausen. 

Vernes,  Precis  d1  Histoire  Juive,  1889.  The  author  gives  a 
good  sketch  of  Hebrew  history,  but  expresses  an  exaggerated 
scepticism  concerning  the  sources  from  which  he  draws. 

Winckler,  Geschichte  Israels,  2  vols.,  1895  and  1900.  The 
work  is  less  a  history  of  Israel  than  a  series  of  ingenious  conjec- 
tures on  various  points  in  the  early  history. 

Klostermann,  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel  bis  zur  Restauration 
unter  Esra  undNehemia,  1 896.  The  author  is  known  as  one  of  the 
ablest  among  the  (comparatively)  conservative  scholars  in  Ger- 
many. 


PREFACE  XX111 

Kent,  History  of  the  Hebrew  People  and  History  of  the  Jewish 
People,  4  vols.,  1896-1900.  The  last  volume  is  by  Professor 
Riggs.  The  work  is  based  upon  a  critical  appreciation  of  the 
sources  and  is  enriched  by  maps  and  chronological  tables. 

Thomas,  Geschichtc  des  Alien  Bundes,  1897.  This  is  a  work 
intended  especially  for  teachers,  and  is  written  by  one  who  is 
not  ex professo  an  Old  Testament  scholar.  The  author  is,  how- 
ever, thoroughly  familiar  with  the  best  critical  literature,  and 
succeeds  in  presenting  the  history  of  Israel  in  connexion  with 
that  of  Egypt  and  the  great  Asiatic  empires.  The  work  extends 
to  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  A.D.  70. 

Piepenbring,  Histoire  du  Peuple  d*  Israel,  1898.  This  is  the 
best  presentation  in  French  of  the  Wellhausenian  reconstruction 
of  the  history  of  Israel. 

Cornill,  History  of  the  People  of  Israel,  1898.  This  is  a  series 
of  ten  papers  prepared  for  the  Open  Court  (Chicago).  It  is  pub- 
lished also  in  German. 

Guthe,  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  1899.  The  English 
reader  will  form  a  good  idea  of  the  author's  position  by  examin- 
ing his  article  "  Israel "  in  the  Encyclopedia  Biblica,  II. 

Lohr,  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  1900 — an  outline  in  eight 
lectures. 

Paton,  The  Early  History  of  Syria  and  Palestine,  1901. 
Though  not  strictly  an  Old  Testament  History,  this  book  dis- 
cusses helpfully  many  questions  which  belong  in  our  department. 

Ottley,  A  Short  History  of  the  Hebrews  to  the  Roman  Period, 
1901.  Maps,  a  brief  sketch  of  critical  positions,  and  a  chrono- 
logical table  add  to  the  usefulness  of  this  volume. 

Wade,  Old  Testament  History  (1901).  The  usefulness  of  this 
book  is  sufficiently  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  a  second  edition 
has  just  appeared  (1903).  It  modestly  claims  that  it  is  not  in- 
tended for  scholars,  "but  for  less  advanced  students."  It  is, 
however,  thoroughly  critical  in  its  positions  and  method. 

The  reader  will  not  fail  to  note  that  the  long  silence  of  Eng- 
lish scholarship  in  the  department  of  Old  Testament  History  has 


XXIV  PREFACE 

now  been  broken,  and  that  the  critical  position  is  fairly  estab- 
lished. 

With  reference  to  the  present  work  I  have  two  remarks  to 
make.  The  first  is  that  for  Hebrew  proper  names  I  have  retained 
the  form  familiar  to  us  in  the  English  of  the  authorised  version. 
The  only  exception  is  the  divine  name  Yahweh,  which  seems  to 
me  in  every  way  preferable  to  the  un-Hebraic  Jehovah. 

My  second  remark  concerns  the  literature  of  the  subject.  All 
branches  of  Old  Testament  science  bear  upon  Old  Testament 
history,  and  there  is  no  book  in  any  department  which  may  not 
have  something  of  value  for  the  historian.  It  is  plain  that  no 
one  man  can  be  familiar  with  this  vast  body  of  literature.  My 
hope  is  that  I  have  overlooked  no  work  of  real  importance. 

In  making  references  I  have  not  usually  taken  into  considera- 
tion other  works  on  Old  Testament  History.  The  reader  who 
wishes  to  study  the  subject  thoroughly  will  consult  the  most  im- 
portant of  these.  Where  I  have  made  references  I  have  made 
them  to  works  which  treat  some  particular  phase  of  the  subject, 
or  which  will  enable  the  reader  to  discover  the  grounds  of  that 
interpretation  of  a  Biblical  text  which  I  have  adopted. 

The  current  method  of  abbreviating  titles  (seen  in  the  frequent 
recurrence  of  such  enigmas  as  P  R  E,  S  B  A  W,  Z  D  M  G)  must 
be  annoying  to  the  reader  who  is  not  familiar  with  the  lit- 
erature. Even  one  who  has  some  experience  is  frequently  at  a 
loss  to  interpret  these  symbols  and  is  obliged  to  waste  his  time 
in  consulting  a  table  of  abbreviations.  However  appropriate  for 
an  encyclopaedia  such  a  system  may  be,  I  am  convinced  that  for 
a  work  like  the  one  before  us  the  trifling  amount  of  space  saved 
should  not  be  brought  into  the  account  against  the  convenience 
of  the  reader.  I  have  therefore  followed  the  example  ofSchurer, 
and  in  each  case  have  given  the  title  of  the  work  which  I  cite 
with  sufficient  fulness  to  enable  the  reader  to  identify  it  at  once. 

My  colleague,  Prof.  John  F.  Genung,  has  read  a  considerable 
part  of  this  work  in  manuscript ;  my  friend,  Prof.  Irving  F. 
Wood,  of  Smith  College,  has  read  the  whole  work  in  proof; 


PREFACE  XXV 

and  my  son,  Preserved  Smith,  Fellow  of  Columbia  University, 
has  also  read  a  considerable  part  of  it  in  proof.  I  am  indebted 
to  all  these  gentlemen  for  helpful  suggestions,  and  it  gives  me 
pleasure  here  to  express  my  thanks. 

AMHKRST,  MASS.,  July  28, 


OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 


CHAPTER  I 

THE   SOURCES 

THE  name  Old  Testament  History  is  an  inheritance  from  early 
theological  science.  All  history  was  allowed  to  fall  into  the  two 
divisions  designated  as  Sacred  and  Profane.  The  former  readily 
divided  itself  into  the  Biblical  and  Ecclesiastical  sections,  and 
the  Biblical  section  as  readily  arranged  itself  under  the  heads 
Old  Testament  and  New  Testament.  Of  late  years  the  distinc- 
tion between  sacred  and  secular  has  become  less  marked.  It  is 
now  felt  that  all  history  is  sacred,  because  it  is  all  the  working 
out  of  the  plan  of  God.  What  has  been  known  as  Old  Testa- 
ment History  now  begins  to  appear  under  the  title  History  of 
Israel. 

Whichever  name  we  use,  the  discipline  itself  is  of  the  first 
importance  to  every  one  who  would  understand  the  world  or  his 
own  time.  The  little  land  of  Palestine  has  had  large  influence 
upon  the  progress  of  mankind.  The  story  of  the  people  who 
dwelt  there  is  more  widely  known  than  anything  else  that  has 
come  down  to  us  from  ancient  times.  In  modern  Europe,  in 
America,  among  all  nations  that  profess  the  Christian  religion  the 
names  of  Abraham,  Moses,  and  David  are  household  words.  The 
same  is  true  in  Mohammedan  countries.  Israel  has  contributed  to 
our  civilisation  the  enduring  and  powerful  element  of  religion.  The 
literature  of  Israel  has  become  a  part  of  the  Bible,  and  the  Bible 
is  the  book  of  religion  for  the  civilised  world.  But  a  literature 
cannot  be  understood  without  a  knowledge  of  the  people  which 
gave  it  birth.  The  importance  of  a  study  of  the  history  of  Israel 
needs  no  further  demonstration.1 

1  On  the  place  of  Old  Testament  History  among  the  theological  science! 
ef.  Briggs,  General  Introduction  to  tkt  Study  of  Holy  Scripture,  1899,  pp.  37, 
487  * 


3  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

In  entering  upon  this  study  we  are  at  once  confronted  by  the 
fact  that  a  large  part  of  the  Old  Testament  itself  is  historical  in 
form.  It  would  seem  at  first  sight  as  if  the  historian  had  only  to 
adopt  what  the  sacred  writers  have  already  written  down,  telling 
their  story  after  them.  The  endeavour  to  do  this  would  be  at 
once  hampered  however  by  the  fact  that  there  is  not  one  history 
to  deal  with,  but  that  there  are  two.  The  books  from  Genesis 
to  II  Kings  give  an  apparently  continuous  narrative  from  the 
Creation  to  the  Exile.  The  Books  of  Chronicles,  with  their  con- 
tinuation in  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  begin  at  the  same  point  and 
carry  the  story  beyond  the  return  from  the  Exile.  Older  schol- 
ars supposed  it  possible — indeed  they  were  forced  by  their  view 
of  inspiration — to  combine  these  two  narratives  in  such  a  way  as 
to  retain  all  the  data  of  both.  It  is  now  generally  recognised 
that  such  a  combination  is  impossible.  The  two  histories  present 
so  many  points  of  divergence  that  they  can  in  no  way  be  made 
to  give  a  homogeneous  account. 

But  a  further  difficulty  arises  when  the  attempt  is  made  to  do 
justice  not  only  to  these  two  histories  but  also  to  the  rest  of  the 
literature  which  has  come  down  to  us  from  Hebrew  antiquity.  An 
important  part  of  this  literature  preserves  to  us  the  works  of  the 
prophets.  These  preachers  of  righteousness  have  left  on  record 
their  impressions  of  their  own  times,  and  have  thus  given  us 
great  light  upon  the  history.  It  becomes  necessary  to  make  use 
of  these  documents  along  with  those  which  are  narrative  in  form. 
The  same  is  true  of  the  poetical  and  apocalyptic  sections  of  the 
Old  Testament.  All  are  monuments  of  an  historic  process,  and 
should  fit  into  a  connected  whole. 

A  successful  presentation  of  this  historic  process  is  therefore 
dependent  upon  historical  criticism.  This  science  distinguishes 
the  documents,  analyses  them  if  compound,  shows  their  true  na- 
ture, dates  them,  and  leads  to  a  correct  estimate  of  their  historic 
content.  Old  Testament  history  is  therefore  directly  dependent 
upon  the  higher  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  conclusions 
reached  by  the  critic  are  the  starting-point  of  the  historian.1 

1  The  higher  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament  is  thoroughly  treated  m 
Driver,  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament ',*  1897.  Com- 
pare also  Briggs,  General  Introduction,  Chapters  XI  and  XII ;  Wellhau- 
sen,  Prolegomena  to  the  History  of  Israel,  translated  by  Black  and  Menzies, 
Edinburgh,  no  date  (the  third  edition  of  the  German  is  dated  1886). 


THE   SOURCES  3 

Critical  study  of  the  Old  Testament  books  has  made  two  things 
plainly,  even  startlingly,  evident.  The  first  is  that  scarcely  one  of 
these  books  can  claim  to  be  a  homogeneous  production.  The  most 
of  them  are  made  up  by  a  process  of  compilation  out  of  previously 
existing  material.  This  is  known  to  be  characteristic  of  large 
parts  of  ancient  literature.  The  Arab  historians  and  commenta- 
tors freely  excerpt  what  they  please  to  take  from  their  predeces- 
sors. Josephus  in  his  history  borrows  in  the  same  way  both 
from  documents  now  in  our  hands  and  from  others  that  have 
perished.  Within  the  bounds  of  a  single  book  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment we  must  expect  to  find  a  variety  of  material,  and  we  must 
learn  to  discriminate  that  which  has  the  greater  historical  value. 
It  will  be  evident  that  where  an  author  has  imbedded  older 
material  in  his  work,  the  older  material  may  have  a  value  quite 
different  from  that  which  he  has  given  it.  The  very  recognition 
of  different  strata  in  an  historical  book  implies  that  some  parts  are 
more  reliable  than  others.  The  historian  must  get  as  near  as  he 
can  to  contemporary  accounts.  In  the  inquiry  as  to  what  ac- 
tually took  place  at  a  given  time,  the  most  ancient  testimony 
deserves  the  first  attention. 

But  besides  the  composite  nature  of  the  documents  we  must 
recognise  another  fact.  The  books  of  the  Old  Testament — even 
those  which  are  historical  in  form — are  not  historical  in  the  sense 
in  which  we  use  the  word.  The  first  aim  of  the  authors  was  not 
to  set  forth  the  actual  course  of  events,  but  to  set  the  events  in 
such  a  light  as  to  point  a  moral.  The  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment are  books  of  devotion,  or  books  of  edification  ;  the  purpose 
of  the  authors  is  didactic  and  hortative.  It  is  in  human  nature 
to  make  sermons  effective  by  painting  their  illustrations  in  vivid 
colours.  And  the  colours  which  most  distinctly  affect  us  are 
those  drawn  from  our  own  experience.  To  modernise  the  inci- 
dents which  we  draw  from  ancient  history  is  almost  necessary  if 
we  are  to  make  our  story  profitable  to  our  own  times.  Uncon- 
sciously but  powerfully  moved  by  this  fact,  the  Hebrew  historians 
used  great  freedom  in  treating  the  material  which  was  in  their 
possession. 

It  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  illustrate  this  tendency  somewhat 
in  detail.  As  has  already  been  remarked,  we  have  two  narrative 
sections  of  the  Old  Testament  which  cover  the  same  ground,  one 
in  the  Books  of  Kings,  the  other  in  the  Books  of  Chronicles.  We 


4  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

cannot  help  asking  ourselves  why  the  Chronicler  should  rewrite 
the  history  of  his  people.  Why  should  he  not  content  himself 
with  reading,  copying,  and  circulating  what  had  come  down  from 
the  fathers  ?  The  plain  answer  to  these  questions  is  that  he  did 
not  find  the  older  history  edifying.  For  one  thing,  there  was 
much  in  it  that  was  to  him  superfluous.  He  had  no  interest  in 
that  backsliding  Kingdom  of  Israel,  to  which  so  much  space  was 
given  in  the  older  narrative.  In  addition  he  was  scandalised  by 
much  that  was  there  set  forth.  Why  should  people  care  to  dwell 
upon  such  unpleasant  things  as  David's  adultery  and  the  rebellion 
of  his  sons  ?  It  would  be  better  (he  thought)  to  draw  the  veil  of 
charity  over  the  faults  and  misfortunes  of  Israel's  great  king.  It 
would  be  more  edifying  to  have  the  history  without  these 
shadows.  And  so  the  good  man  rewrote  it  without  the  shadows. 
He  had  no  idea  of  casting  doubt  upon  the  older  story,  only  he 
wanted  a  more  edifying  presentation.  His  omissions  are  thus 
easily  accounted  for. 

It  is  equally  easy  to  account  for  the  insertions.  The  Chron- 
icler lived  in  a  time  when  the  Priest-code l  had  become  fully  es- 
tablished as  the  law  of  the  people.  Now  the  peculiarity  of  the 
Priest-code  is  that  it  carries  an  elaborate  ritual  back  to  the  times 
of  Moses.  The  Chronicler  adopted  this  view  with  all  his  heart. 
To  him  the  whole  ritual  establishment  had  been  organised  in  con- 
nexion with  the  Tabernacle  and  had  come  with  Israel  into  the 
promised  land.  But  if  this  were  so  the  question  arose  :  What  be- 
came of  it?  The  older  historical  books  are  evidently  silent  con- 
cerning it.  This  might  be  accounted  for  in  the  period  of  the  Judges 
and  in  the  period  of  Saul.  Those  were  times  of  declension  and 
of  disintegration.  But  even  when  we  come  to  David  we  find  the 
same  oppressive  silence.  The  older  narrative  knows  of  only  two 
priests  at  David's  court,  and  ignores  the  Levites  altogether. 
When  David  flees  before  Absalom,  Zadok  and  Abiathar  them- 
selves bring  the  Ark  to  David.  Where  was  the  great  corps  of 
Levites  which  ought  to  have  borne  the  Ark  and  accompanied  it 
as  a  guard  of  honour  ?  This  question  was  only  one  of  many 
similar  ones  that  the  Chronicler  presumably  asked  himself.*  His 

1  On  this  document  compare  Driver,  Introduction,  pp.  126-159. 

'  The  statements  that  David's  sons  were  priests  and  that  Ira  the  Jairite 
was  a  priest  (II  Sam.  8",  20**)  do  not  substantially  relieve  the  difficulty 
(eh  by  the  Chronicler ;  they  would  rather  increase  his  perplexity. 


THE  SOURCES  » 

reply  was  to  the  effect  that  the  older  narrative,  whatever  its  excel- 
lencies, was  gravely  deficient  in  many  points.  He  therefore  set  to 
work  to  make  it  more  complete,  and  this  he  did  with  a  thorough- 
ness that  commands  our  admiration.  No  sooner  does  his  narra- 
tive bring  the  Ark  to  its  new  home  in  Jerusalem  than  he  supplies 
it  with  an  elaborate  household,  as  we  may  fairly  judge  from  the 
sixty-eight  doorkeepers1  whose  number  is  expressly  given.  A 
few  years  later  we  find  David  gathering  the  Levites  together,  and 
their  number  is  given  at  thirty-eight  thousand — all  of  them  ma- 
ture men,  qualified  for  the  service  of  the  sanctuary.  David  pro- 
ceeds at  this  time  to  organise  them  more  completely,  but  it  is 
evidently  the  mind  of  the  author  that  they  were  already  members 
of  the  sacred  caste  which  had  been  set  apart  by  Moses.  Instead 
of  the  two  priests  of  David's  court  we  now  find  the  house  o\ 
Aaron  numbering  nearly  four  thousand  adult  males  *  and  organised 
in  twenty-four  courses,  only  one  of  which  is  in  service  at  any  one 
time.  The  deficiencies  of  the  earlier  document  have  been  thor- 
oughly supplied.  Along  with  this,  too,  the  desire  to  find  in 
David  a  nursing  father  for  the  visible  church  is  gratified  by 
making  him  the  reorganiser  of  the  service  and  the  founder  of  the 
music  of  the  Temple. 

In  the  matter  of  the  priesthood  therefore  we  understand  the 
motive  of  the  Chronicler ;  at  the  same  time  we  discover  that  his 
work  must  not  be  called  history.  We  shall  do  him  wrong  if  we 
suppose  him  to  be  alone  in  his  peculiar  views.  There  is  no 
doubt  that  he  represents  the  whole  tendency  of  his  own  time,  and 
that  the  way  had  been  prepared  for  him  by  a  whole  school  of 
tradition.  Not  only  the  religion  of  the  time  was  casting  a  glamour 
over  the  past ;  its  patriotism  was  equally  concerned.  As  the 
horizon  of  the  Jews  had  widened  when  brought  into  the  Persian 
and  Greek  periods  their  view  of  Israel's  ancient  history  became 
exaggerated.  David  and  Solomon,  the  heroes  of  the  past,  were 
now  measured  by  the  standards  of  Xerxes  or  Alexander.  Their 
wealth  becomes  comparable  to  the  wealth  of  Babylon.  In  re- 
writing the  history  of  these  Kings,  therefore,  the  Chronicler  finds 
the  earlier  data  altogether  too  modest.  When  David  gathered  the 
warriors  of  Israel  together,  according  to  the  earlier  history,  he 
found  them  to  be  thirty  thousand  in  number.  But  when  the 

*I  Chr.  l6w;  notice  also  the  choir  of  Levites  already  present,  vv.  *"T. 
•According  to  I  Chr.  12"  there  are  3,700  who  came  to  David  at  Hebron. 


6  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

Chronicler  brings  the  bands  of  fighting  men  to  David  at  Hebront 
before  his  coronation,  there  are  more  than  three  hundred  thou- 
sand.1 The  author  is  equally  lavish  in  other  instances  of  num- 
bers, proving  again  that  his  narrative  must  not  be  called  history. 
In  fact  it  must  be  classed  with  the  Jewish  literature  which  we  call 
Midrash.* 

The  Midrash  is  a  recognised  form  of  later  Jewish  literature, 
which  has  arisen  from  the  tendency  we  are  considering — the  ten- 
dency of  the  religious  mind  to  modify  historical  material  so  as  to 
make  it  serve  for  present  edification.  Examples  of  it  are  found 
in  the  pseudepigraphical  books,  as  for  example  the  Book  of 
Jubilees.  In  this  book  the  material  of  the  canonical  Genesis  is 
rewritten  to  suit  the  taste  of  the  times — the  first  century  before 
Christ.  Here  the  Mosaic  institutions  are  antedated,  because 
the  devotees  of  the  Law  could  not  suppose  that  Abraham  did 
not  live  by  the  most  perfect  rule  of  life.  The  freedom  with 
which  Josephus  and  Philo  fill  out  the  Biblical  biographies  is  an 
example  of  the  same  tendency ;  and  indeed  modern  sermons  are 
in  no  wise  slow  to  paint  the  lives  of  Abraham  and  Moses  and 
David  with  colours  drawn  from  legend  or  from  the  preacher's  im- 
agination. It  is  not  without  significance  that  the  Chronicler 
names  among  his  sources  a  Midrash  of  the  prophet  Iddo,  and  a 
Midrash  of  the  Book  of  Kings.1  His  whole  book  could  not  be 
better  described  than  by  the  title  A  Midrash  of  the  Book  of  Kings. 

So  strong  is  this  tendency  that  it  is  discoverable  in  other  parts 
of  the  Old  Testament.  The  critical  analysis  of  the  earlier  his- 
torical books  shows  that  the  authors  of  some  of  the  documents 
were  aiming  to  prove  a  thesis.  The  editor  of  Judges  avows  his 

1  I  Chr.  12  ts-".  The  total  appears  to  be  340,600,  besides  222  captains 
whose  soldiers  are  not  enumerated.  The  earlier  account  is  II  Sam.  6  l. 

1  The  nature  of  the  Book  of  Chronicles  was  first  distinctly  set  forth  by 
De  Wette  in  his  Beitrdge  zur  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  I,  Halle, 
1806.  Wellhausen  makes  a  clear  and  convincing  statement  in  his  Prolego- 
mena s,  pp.  175-235 ;  History  of  Israel,  pp.  171-222.  The  reader  may  also 
consult  Driver,  Introduction*,  pp.  516-554,  and  the  articles  in  Hastings, 
Dictionary  of  the  Bible  (by  Professor  Francis  Brown)  and  in  the  Ency- 
clopadia  Biblica. 

1  II  Chr.  13  M,  24  ".  On  the  subject  of  Midrash  cf.  SchUrer,  Geschichte 
Jes  Judischen  Volkes*,  II,  pp.  327,  338-350;  Zunz,  Gottesdienstliche  Vor* 
trage*  1892,  pp.  13,  37.  Considerable  portions  of  the  later  Jewish  Mid. 
rash  are  translated  by  Wunsche,  Bibliotheca  Rabbinica,  Leipzig,  1880,  and 
later. 


THE  SOURCES  7 

aim  in  the  very  distinct  statement  which  he  makes  concerning  the 
lesson  of  his  history.  The  stories  of  the  ancient  heroes  which  he 
recites  are  fitted  by  him  into  a  framework  in  which  they  did  not 
originally  belong,  and  in  which  some  of  them  at  least  are  made 
to  teach  a  lesson  wholly  foreign  to  the  intent  of  their  original  au- 
thor. In  the  First  Book  of  Samuel  we  have  a  particularly  glar- 
ing instance  of  two  contradictory  points  of  view  urged  by  differ- 
ent sections  of  the  narrative.  The  older  document  made  the 
anointing  of  Saul  an  act  of  grace,  a  manifestation  of  Yahweh's 
favour  toward  Israel.  A  later  writer  had  a  very  different  view 
of  the  monarchy  and  he  enforced  it  by  his  version  of  the  story. 
According  to  him  the  demand  for  a  King  was  the  act  of  an  un- 
ruly and  backslidden  people.  Samuel  acceded  to  the  demand 
only  under  protest,  and  the  divine  purpose  was  to  punish  the  peo- 
ple by  the  very  King  whom  they  desire.  This  second  account 
is  a  rewriting  of  the  older  one.  All  that  is  new  in  it  is  the  point 
of  view.  Its  interest  is  not  in  the  history  but  in  the  moral  it  can 
be  made  to  teach.1  That  the  latest  redactor  of  the  Books  of 
Kings  has  the  same  interest,  is  evident  from  the  judgment  which 
he  so  constantly  pronounces  on  the  men  and  events  of  which  he 
writes. 

It  is  necessary  for  the  modern  historian  to  make  constant  al- 
lowance for  these  tendencies.  The  result  is  undoubtedly  a 
serious  modification,  and  in  many  cases  a  reversal  of  the  state- 
ments which  the  Biblical  historians  have  made.  This  is  not  sur- 
prising. The  authors  who  gave  final  form  to  the  Biblical  history 
were  remote  from  the  events  which  they  described.  They  were 
under  the  impression  of  a  powerful  judgment  of  God  in  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem  and  the  exile  of  their  people.  It  was  in- 
evitable that  they  should  look  upon  the  whole  past  of  their  nation 
as  a  perpetual  backsliding.  As  we  ourselves  know,  grave  imper- 
fections are  seen  in  the  civilisation  of  earlier  ages,  when  it  is 
measured  by  a  modern  standard.  The  Biblical  writers  easily 
saw  the  imperfections  of  their  predecessors,  and  had  not  the 
breadth  of  view  rightly  to  make  allowance  for  them.  Hence  the 
pessimism  of  their  histories,  a  pessimism  that  was  exaggerated  by 

1  The  composite  nature  of  these  historical  books  is  pointed  out  in  the  re- 
cent  commentaries,  that  of  Moore  on  Judges,  my  own  on  Samuel  (both  in  the 
International  Critical  Commentary),  and  those  in  Marti  Kuner  Handkom~ 
mentor,  and  Nowack  Handkommentar. 


8  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

their  view  of  a  more  remote  past.  For  along  with  a  severe  judg- 
ment of  our  immediate  ancestors  there  often  goes  a  tendency  to 
glorify  those  more  remote.  An  American  may  in  the  same 
breath  condemn  the  statesmen  of  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury, while  praising  the  revolutionary  fathers  in  unstinted  terms. 
So  the  sacred  historian  condemns  the  whole  people  from  the  time 
of  the  conquest  down,  while  idealising  the  Patriarchs.  In  both 
respects  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  make  allowance  for  the  point  of 
view. 

The  extent  to  which  this  pessimistic  tendency  has  taken  posses- 
sion of  our  minds  as  we  look  at  the  Biblical  story  can  hardly  be 
overstated.  Although,  according  to  one  story,  God  created  all 
things  very  good,  the  fall  of  man  which  follows  effaces  the  primi- 
tive goodness  and  infects  soil  and  man  with  a  curse.  The  first 
age  of  the  world  ends  in  a  corruption  so  universal  that  it  must  be 
wiped  out  by  the  Deluge.  In  the  succeeding  generations  the 
character  of  Abraham  alone  is  worthy  of  our  respect.  His  pure 
and  lofty  monotheism  passes  on  to  Isaac  and  Jacob,  though  the 
family  of  Jacob  already  show  signs  of  degeneracy.  But  Moses  is 
sent  to  a  stiff-necked  people,  as  appears  throughout  the  Exodus 
and  the  Wandering.  A  brief  brightness  shines  in  the  career  of 
Joshua.  But  as  soon  as  he  is  gone  the  incorrigible  depravity  of 
the  people  comes  into  view.  Each  of  the  Judges  is  leader  of  a  re- 
vival which  comes  after  a  period  of  deep  and  inexcusable  back- 
sliding. The  establishment  of  the  monarchy  is  only  a  glaring 
instance  of  the  perversity  of  the  people.  David  indeed  redeems 
the  institution  from  the  curse  under  which  we  suspect  it  to 
labour.  But  after  David  the  degeneracy  again  shows  itself.  The 
rebellion  of  the  ten  tribes,  the  preservation  of  the  High-places, 
the  political  moves  of  the  various  monarchs — all  teach  the  same 
lesson.  The  climax  is  reached  in  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  which  is 
God's  final  and  emphatic  curse  on  ages  of  rebellion. 

The  justification  for  the  modern  historian  who  modifies  this 
picture  or  even  contradicts  it,  is  in  the  fact  already  mentioned 
that  this  is  the  view  of  the  latest  time,  and  that  if  we  disentangle 
the  documents  some  of  them  at  least  will  tell  a  very  different 
story.  Whatever  the  total  result,  the  serious  historian  will  give 
all  the  documents  the  weight  which  belongs  to  them.  The  en- 
deavour to  harmonise  them  so  that  they  will  agree  in  the  lesson 
they  teach  brings  us  at  once  into  difficulty.  If,  as  one  document 


THE  SOURCES  9 

affirms,  David  had  a  Teraphim  (an  idolatrous  image)  in  his 
house,  and  if,  as  another  document  asserts,  the  law  against  idola- 
try was  promulgated  before  the  time  of  David,  we  are  in  a  hope- 
less muddle  ;  for  all  the  documents  agree  that  David  was  obedi- 
ent to  the  will  of  God.  The  difficulty  is  with  the  document 
which  has  antedated  the  giving  of  the  law,  and  we  should  frankly 
recognise  this.  A  parallel  case  in  the  life  of  Gideon  will  meet  us 
in  our  later  investigation. 

The  obvious  lesson  from  what  has  been  said  is  that  the  student 
must  first  concern  himself  with  the  history  of  tradition.  He 
must  clearly  distinguish  the  different  documents  which  have  been 
wrought  into  the  Biblical  text,  and  be  able  to  give  each  one  its 
approximate  date.  The  testimony  of  each  one  must  then  be 
taken  for  the  period  in  which  it  belongs,  for  it  is  evident  that 
its  primary  value  is  here.  The  Chronicler  has  no  independent 
value  for  the  history  of  David ;  but  for  the  history  of  his  own 
generation  his  work  is  priceless.  The  success  of  the  historian 
depends  upon  getting  at  what  each  author  has  to  reveal  concern- 
ing his  own  time.  Nor  is  it  necessary  to  lay  much  stress  upon 
the  charge  that  the  historian  in  trying  to  date  his  documents 
is  moved  by  an  evolutionary  bias.  Progress  there  must  be  in  all 
history,  or  it  would  not  be  history.  It  need  not  be  difficult 
for  the  Old  Testament  historian  to  determine  questions  of  early 
or  late  without  being  under  a  bias  of  any  kind.1 

In  the  history  of  tradition  we  must  include  those  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  which  are  not  distinctively  historical.  How  great 
importance  these  prophetical  and  poetical  books  have  for  the 
history  of  their  times  must  be  evident.  But  it  is  also  evident 
that  we  cannot  take  them  for  what  the  Jewish  editors  supposed 
them  to  be  until  we  have  verified  their  claims.  The  various  ele- 
ments which  go  to  make  up  the  Book  of  Isaiah,  for  example,  must 
be  examined  and  dated  before  they  are  used  for  historical  pur- 
poses. In  such  cases  the  historian  works  hand  in  hand  with  the 
literary  critic,  or  freely  avails  himself  of  his  predecessor's  results. 

1  A  thorough  discussion  of  the  tradition  as  a  preliminary  to  a  history 
of  Israel  was  made  by  Ewald  in  his  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel  (third  edi- 
tion in  seven  volumes,  1864-1868,  English  Translation,  6  vols.,  1869-1883). 
Unfortunately  Ewald  was  wrong  in  his  theory  of  the  order  of  the  docu- 
ments. His  error  was  corrected  by  Wellhausen  in  his  Geschichte  Israels,  I 
(later  editions  bear  the  title  Prolegomena  *ur  Geschichte  Israels').  Notice 
also  Winckler's  statement  in  Keilinschriften  und  Altes  Testament,  p.  308. 


IO  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

Having  got  at  the  history  of  tradition  we  may  inquire  for  the 
facts  which  lie  behind  the  tradition.  In  this  inquiry  we  are  often 
obliged  to  confess  our  ignorance.  What  actually  happened  at  a 
given  epoch  is  eternally  concealed  from  us  where  (as  is  so  often 
the  case)  the  documents  are  lacking.  Nevertheless  we  have 
reason  to  feel  that  the  main  outlines  are  reasonably  clear.  In 
the  endeavour  to  trace  them,  we  shall  follow  the  course  laid  down 
by  the  Old  Testament  itself. 


CHAPTER  H 

THE  ORIGINS 

THE  Hebrew  narrative  books  as  they  are  now  in  our  hands 
have  a  well-defined  scheme  of  history.  The  Book  of  Genesis 
begins  with  the  creation  of  the  world,  and  gives  a  chronological 
outline  of  the  first  period,  which  ends  with  the  Deluge.  A  fresh 
start  is  made  with  Noah,  the  second  father  of  the  race.  In  this 
period  the  whole  race  of  mankind  is  grouped  genealogically,  and, 
as  it  appears,  geographically ;  the  three  zones  of  the  known  world 
being  assigned  to  the  three  sons  of  Noah  and  their  descendants. 
Attention  is  then  directed  to  Abraham,  one  of  the  descendants  of 
Shem.  This  is  because  he  is  the  father  of  the  group  of  peoples 
to  which  Israel  belongs.  In  the  family  of  Abraham  we  are  intro- 
duced to  Ishmael  and  Isaac.  But  Ishmael  is  dismissed  from  the 
record  with  a  mere  genealogy,  that  we  may  devote  ourselves  to 
Isaac  and  his  line.  The  two  sons  of  Isaac  are  brought  before  us 
in  the  same  way,  and  a  genealogical  account  of  the  clans  of  Esau 
is  given  before  they  in  turn  are  dismissed,  that  we  may  give  exclu- 
sive attention  to  Jacob  and  his  sons.  These  are  the  main  sub- 
jects of  the  narrative,  up  to  which  the  rest  has  skilfully  led. 

It  is  necessary  for  us  to  note  however  that  this  plan  of  history, 
which  leaves  nothing  to  be  desired  in  point  of  completeness,  is 
due  to  the  latest  of  the  authors  who  have  been  concerned  in  the 
composition  of  Genesis.  These  numbers  and  genealogies  are  the 
work  of  the  Priestly  author,  who  wrote  certainly  after  the  year 
500  B.C.  In  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  his  time  which 
delighted  in  genealogical  tables — as  we  see  abundantly  illustrated 
in  the  Books  of  Chronicles  written  a  little  later — he  brought  the 
whole  early  history  into  tabular  form.  The  divisions  of  his  his- 
tory are  in  fact  entitled  genealogies.  Even  the  sketch  of  the 
Creation  has  the  subscription  "  This  is  the  Book  of  Genealogy  of 
Heaven  and  Earth,"1  and  similar  titles  stand  at  the  head  of  the 
other  divisions  of  his  work. 

1  A  slight  alteration  of  the  received  text  is  here  accepted,  as  made  by  Ball, 
The  Book  of  Genesis,  in  Hanpt's  Sacred  Books  of  tht  Old  Testamtnt  (1896). 

II 


12  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

On  account  of  this  formal  and  schematic  character  of  the  work 
of  P l,  this  work  was  made  the  basis  of  the  composite  book  before 
us ;  for  it  is  evident  that  two  very  different  hands  have  been  at 
work  in  the  account  of  the  Creation.  The  writer  of  the  cold  and 
dignified  narrative  in  Genesis  i1-2*a  could  not  have  written  the 
brilliant  and  imaginative  sketch  which  runs  through  the  second, 
third,  and  fourth  chapters  of  the  book.  In  this  latter,  which 
is  evidently  the  more  primitive  account,  Yahweh  *  is  naively 
human.  He  experiments  with  His  creation.  He  shapes  man 
out  of  clay;  then  having  given  him  life  He  forms  the  other 
animals  to  see  whether  they  will  be  fit  companions  of  man.  Only 
when  He  sees  that  none  of  these  meets  the  exigency  does  He  fall 
upon  the  device  of  taking  a  part  of  the  man  himself  to  make  into 
a  woman.  Furthermore,  he  plants  a  garden  in  the  East,  in  which 
He  Himself  dwells.  He  places  the  man  in  it  as  His  gardener  to 
till  it  and  to  guard  it.  As  He  takes  His  evening  walk  there,  He 
discovers  man's  guilt  by  his  behaviour — of  any  exercise  of 
omniscience  there  is  no  question.  He  expels  man  from  the  garden 
because  he  has  become  dangerously  like  a  divine  being.  All  this 
is  very  delightful  and  very  primitive. 

It  does  not  seem  venturesome  to  declare  that  this  cosmology  is 
different  from  the  other  in  that  it  took  its  origin  in  the  desert. 
It  begins  by  declaring  that  in  the  day  when  Yahweh  made 
heaven  and  earth,  there  was  no  bush  of  the  field  on  the  earth,  and 
no  grass  had  sprung  up,  because  Yahweh  had  not  rained  on  the 
earth,  and  there  was  no  man  to  till  the  ground.  In  the  desert, 
herbage  springs  up  after  the  rain,  and  the  tilled  ground  is  ground 
that  has  been  reclaimed  from  the  waste  by  the  man  who  carefully 
husbands  its  water-supply.  This  is  in  contrast  with  the  other 

1  So  we  will  designate  the  Priestly  writer,  in  accordance  with  now  common 
usage.  The  other  writers  of  the  Hexateuch  are  J  (the  Yahwist,  from  his 
use  of  the  divine  name  Yahweh),  E  (the  Elohist,  from  his  preference  for 
Elohim  as  the  name  of  God),  and  D  (the  author  of  Deuteronomy).  As  J 
shows  a  marked  interest  in  the  history  of  Judah  he  is  sometimes  called  the 
Judaic  writer,  and  E,  by  contrast,  is  the  Ephraimitic.  A  very  full  discussion 
of  the  nature  of  the  documents  is  given  by  Carpenter  and  Battersby,  The 
Hexateuch  I,  1900 ;  cf.  also  Briggs,  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch, 
1897. 

*  It  seems  better  to  use  this,  which  is  the  Hebrew  name  for  God,  than  to 
take  a  more  general  and  less  definite  word.  The  orthography  is  intended  to 
represent  what  was  probably  the  original  pronunciation.  See  the  new 
Hebrew  Lexicon  B  D  B,  sub  voct. 


THE  ORIGINS  1$ 

conception,  according  to  which  the  primeval  chaos  was  the  pri- 
meval ocean,  or  the  primeval  mud,  from  which  the  water  must  be 
drained  into  the  great  subterranean  reservoir  before  the  dry  land 
could  appear. 

The  creation  story  of  the  Yahwist  cannot  be  correctly  esti- 
mated without  considering  the  other  legendary  or  mythological 
material  of  his  narrative.  Leaving  out  of  view  the  Deluge,  which 
possibly  did  not  belong  in  the  earliest  form  of  J,  we  may  look  at 
his  story  of  the  Confusion  of  Tongues.  Here  we  see  clearly 
that  he  has  the  intention  to  account  for  the  present  state  of  man- 
kind in  contrast  with  a  primitive  state  which  was  quite  different. 
If  all  our  race  be  descended  from  a  single  pair,  how  do  they 
come  to  speak  so  many  languages  ?  This  is  a  question  which  was 
forced  upon  him  by  what  he  saw  of  the  actual  condition  of  man- 
kind. And  in  answering  this  question  he  used  the  story  of  a 
tower  and  an  etymology,  neither  of  which  originally  had  any 
connexion  with  what  they  now  set  forth.1  Our  author  is  a  phi- 
losopher; he  is  interested  in  accounting  for  the  present  state  of 
things.  This  story  accounts  for  the  awkward  variety  of  languages 
spoken  by  mankind.  The  Deity  devised  it  to  check  the  too 
great  power  of  mankind.  Now  we  understand  the  earlier  narra- 
tive. Precisely  as  the  story  of  the  Confusion  accounts  for  the 
present  variety  of  speech,  so  does  the  story  of  the  Fall  account 
for  the  present  toilsome  lot  of  the  labourer.  The  toil  of  the  peas- 
ant is  far  more  exacting  than  we  should  expect  for  the  man  who 
was  created  to  keep  the  garden  of  Yahweh.  The  earth,  as  we 
now  see  it,  has  a  constant  tendency  to  thorns  and  briers.  This 
must  be  because  Yahweh  was  obliged  to  keep  man  in  check. 
He  had  aspired  too  high,  had  almost  become  like  God.  Equally 
strange  with  the  ceaseless  toil  of  man  is  the  painful  parturition  of 
woman  when  compared  with  the  easy  travail  of  the  animals.  It 
was  an  ingenious  speculation  which  solved  both  these  problems 
and  at  the  same  time  accounted  for  the  anomalous  life  of  the  ser- 
pent, by  the  story  of  the  temptation  and  fall  of  man. 

This  same  account  gives  us  a  glimpse  into  primitive  mythol- 
ogy by  its  treatment  of  the  serpent  as  one  of  the  characters  in 
the  drama.  We  have  no  difficulty  in  recognising  in  him  some- 

1  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  remark  that  our  appreciation  of  the  author  Is 
not  affected  by  his  etymology  of  the  name  Babel — an  etymology  which  U 
impossible.  The  passage  is  Gen.  II  '•*. 


14  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

thing  more  than  an  animal.  But  the  reason  is  that  to  the  writer 
all  animals  were  something  more  than  animals  as  we  view  them. 
To  primitive  man — to  man  far  beyond  the  primitive  stage  in 
fact — all  animals  have  something  demonic  about  them.  Not  that 
the  serpent  is  the  fallen  angel  of  Milton's  poem,  or  the  Satan  of 
the  New  Testament.  He  is  simply  a  jinnee,  a  fairy  if  you  will, 
possessed  of  more  knowledge  than  the  other  animals,  but  otherwise 
like  them.  Diabolical  envy  or  malice  cannot  be  ascribed  to  him. 
He  counsels  man  to  eat  of  the  fruit  bona  fide,  because  he  knows 
that  man  will  be  raised  toward  the  life  of  the  gods  by  eating.  He 
has  not  wit  enough  to  foresee  that  Yahweh  will  resent  the  invasion 
of  His  prerogatives,  nor  has  he  strength  or  cunning  to  resist  the 
sentence  pronounced  upon  him  for  his  meddling.1 

The  material  which  J  embodied  in  his  narrative  is  properly 
described  by  the  term  mythological.  If  this  is  not  evident  from 
what  has  been  said  it  will  come  into  view  when  we  consider  a 
section  which  we  have  not  yet  studied.  This  is  the  account  of 
the  marriage  of  the  Sons  of  God  with  the  daughters  of  men.* 

The  little  section  reads  as  follows: 

"And  when  men  began  to  multiply  on  the  earth  and  daughters  were  born 
to  them,  the  Sons  of  God  saw  that  the  daughters  of  men  were  fair,  and  they 
took  to  themselves  wives  of  all  whom  they  chose.  Then  Yahweh  said, 
My  spirit  shall  not  continue  in  man  forever  on  account  of  their  erring.  He 
is  flesh,  and  his  days  shall  be  a  hundred  and  twenty  years." 

In  considering  this  obscure  passage  some  things  are  not  ob- 
scure. The  first  is  that  the  Sons  of  God,  which  are  mentioned  in 
such  distinct  contrast  with  the  daughters  of  men,  must  be  beings 
of  another  order.  When  men  began  to  multiply  then  the  angels 
were  enticed — this  is  the  only  proper  antithesis.  And  with  this 
interpretation  agrees  Biblical  usage  in  the  few  cases  in  which 
the  Sons  of  God  are  mentioned.5  There  is  no  other  way  in 

1  The  character  of  the  serpent  as  a  demonic  being  is  sufficiently  evident 
in  the  most  diverse  mythologies.  The  brazen  serpent  worshipped  at  Jerusa- 
lem till  the  time  of  Hezekiah  is  evidence  for  the  view  of  the  Hebrews,  II 
Kings  18  «. 

1  Gen.  6  '•*.  The  paragraph  presents  palpable  difficulties  to  the  translator, 
and  has  been  the  subject  of  almost  endless  discussion.  The  student  may  read 
with  profit  Budde,  Die  Biblische  Urgeschichte  (\%&$),  and  in  opposition  to  some 
of  Budde's  positions  Gruppe,  in  the  Zcitschrift fur  die  Alttest.  Wissenschaft, 
1889,  p.  135  ff.;  among  the  commentaries  Dillmann  (Eng.  Transl.  1897) 
gives  a  good  view  of  the  state  of  the  inquiry. 

•Job,  i\  a1,  38';  cf.  Ps.  29 »,  89 *<•>  and  Dan.  3*. 


THE  ORIGINS  1$ 

which  we  can  do  justice  to  this  passage  with  its  use  of  the 
generic  word  man.  It  follows  that  we  have  here  to  do  with  the 
marriage  of  the  jinn  (to  use  the  Arab  word  once  more)  with 
human  beings.  So  the  passage  was  interpreted  by  later  Juda- 
ism and  by  the  early  Christians,1  whose  fully  developed  angel- 
ology  was  able  to  make  use  of  it  to  account  for  the  origin  of  sin. 
Our  author  has  a  less  definite  conception  of  the  superhuman 
beings  concerned  in  the  transaction  than  had  the  Fathers  of  the 
Church,  but  that  they  are  superhuman  and  in  the  class  to  which 
Yahweh  belongs,  seems  quite  clear. 

The  difference  between  this  early  writer  and  the  later  ones 
to  which  I  have  alluded,  is  that  he  knows  nothing  of  a  condemna- 
tion of  the  angels.  He  does  not  call  their  conduct  sinful.  Nor 
indeed  does  he  condemn  the  human  beings  involved.  All  that 
we  discover  in  his  account  is  that  Yahweh  is  displeased.  And 
the  reason  that  Yahweh  is  displeased  is  that  by  the  conduct  of 
the  angels  His  spirit  is  brought  into  human  bodies.  This  implies 
a  dangerous  increase  in  the  power  of  mankind.  The  danger  is 
met  by  the  decree  that  the  duration  of  man  upon  earth  shall  be 
comparatively  brief.  It  is  the  prevention  of  immortality  which 
is  the  chief  concern,  as  was  the  case  in  setting  a  guard  over  the 
tree  of  life. 

In  similar  stories  in  other  mythologies  we  find  an  assault  made 
by  the  inferior  gods  upon  the  throne  of  the  Creator.  It  is  natu- 
ral to  suppose  that  something  of  the  kind  was  in  the  original 
from  which  our  author  drew,  because  he  takes  pains  to  bring 
in  a  reference  to  the  giants,  offspring  of  the  celestial  marriages. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  absence  of  any  condemnation  of  the 
angels  argues  against  such  a  supposition.  The  mention  of  the 
giants  is  simply  a  piece  of  tradition  which  attached  itself  natu- 
rally to  the  text.  Gigantic  races  were  thought  to  have  dwelt  in 
Palestine  before  the  coming  of  the  Hebrews.1  Mighty  men  like 
Nimrod  had  left  a  name  to  succeeding  generations.  Founders  of 
cities  or  empires  were  worshipped  as  gods  by  many  peoples.  The 
Hebrew  could  not  make  them  gods,  for  that  was  contrary  to  the 

1  For  example,  Josephus,  Antiquities,  I,  3,  i ;  Enoch,  6*,  y1,  86s  r;  Jubi- 
lees, 5  1-* ;  Sulpicius  Severus,  Chronica,  2  *.  Cf.  also  Eisenmenger's  £nt* 
decktes  Judenthum,  I,  p.  380. 

'Num.  1 3**.  The  giant  Nimrod  possibly  once  stood  in  connection  with 
our  passage;  Budde,  Urgeschickte,  p.  391. 


16  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

genius  of  his  religion.  But  it  was  natural  for  him  to  find  some- 
thing superhuman  in  men  who  filled  the  earth  with  the  terror  of 
their  name.  The  Biblical  account  does  not  condemn  these  heroes 
or  tyrants;  they  have  always  been,  in  fact,  the  objects  of  admira- 
tion as  truly  as  of  terror.  What  our  author  is  trying  to  do  is  to 
account  for  them  and  at  the  same  time  to  account  for  the  brevity 
of  human  life. 

Enough  has  been  said  to  show  that  we  have  here  a  piece  of 
genuine  mythology.  And  this  characterisation  extends  to  the 
whole  of  J's  material  for  this  period — it  is  mythological  but 
not  polytheistic.  That  he  has  preserved  only  fragments  of  what 
circulated  in  his  time  is  evident.1  What  he  preserved  he  was 
able  to  bring  into  harmony  with  the  strictest  monotheism.  For 
the  Yahweh  of  our  account,  anthropomorphic  as  He  is,  is  yet 
the  supreme  God.  No  other  is  brought  into  rivalry  with  Him. 
And  we  may  say  also  that  He  remains  worthy  of  our  reverence 
even  in  the  primitive  stories  we  have  considered. 

What  we  have  found  out  for  our  Old  Testament  history  is  that 
this  part  of  J  contains  nothing  that  can  be  called  historical  in 
the  proper  sense  of  the  word.  The  importance  which  the  story 
of  the  fall  of  man  has  had  in  the  history  of  thought  is  known  to 
everyone.  But  consideration  of  this  phase  of  the  subject  belongs 
to  the  history  of  philosophy.  It  should  be  remarked  that  the  in- 
fluence it  exercised  did  not  begin  till  after  the  completion  of  the 
Old  Testament  canon.  There  is  not  one  indication  that  the 
Prophets  of  Israel  ever  gave  a  thought  to  the  speculations  which 
the  Yahwist  has  clothed  for  us  in  these  attractive  stories. 

With  this  negative  result  in  mind  we  turn  again  to  the  later 
narrative,  that  of  P,  which,  as  already  remarked,  furnished  the 
framework  into  which  the  stories  of  J  have  been  fitted.  In  form 
this  document  is  strictly  historical.  It  sets  before  us  the  crea- 
tive work  in  its  parts,  orderly  arranged  in  seven  days.  It  then 
gives  a  genealogy  which  is  also  a  chronology,  naming  the  year 
in  which  each  of  the  ten  antediluvian  patriarchs  received  a  first- 
born son.  We  are  thus  brought  to  the  Flood,  which  closes  this 
period  of  the  history  and  leaves  only  Noah  to  become  the  new 
head  of  the  race. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  ask  whether  this  author,  living  at  a 

1  Other  creation  myths  circulated  in  Israel  down  to  a  comparatively  late 
date,  as  is  shown  by  Gunkel,  Commentar  turn  Buthe  Genesis  (1901)  p.  29  ff. 


THE  ORIGINS  I/ 

comparatively  late  date,  had  such  definite  and  precise  informa- 
tion concerning  the  early  ages  of  the  world.  Such  information 
might  conceivably  have  come  to  him  by  special  revelation,1  but 
he  seems  to  make  no  claim  to  have  received  it  thus.  As  we  know 
by  his  method  elsewhere,  he  was  generally  dependent  upon  older 
written  sources,  which,  however,  he  freely  recast  to  meet  the 
views  of  his  own  time.  This  creates  a  probability  that  here  also 
he  is  similarly  dependent.  Moreover  we  should  be  puzzled  to 
account  for  a  special  revelation  of  so  early  an  event  delivered  at 
so  late  a  date.  If  exact  knowledge  of  the  process  of  creation  and 
of  the  longevity  of  the  antediluvians  was  necessary  for  Israel's 
education  in  piety,  it  should  have  been  given  much  earlier.  All 
the  probabilities,  therefore,  are  against  this  account  being  histori- 
cal, in  the  natural  sense  of  that  word. 

In  comparing  the  account  of  the  creation  now  before  us  with 
the  account  in  the  other  document,  we  are  at  once  struck  with 
the  difference  in  tone  and  in  the  point  of  view.  In  P  God  is 
transcendent.  He  no  longer  shapes  His  men  and  animals  out  of 
clay;  He  does  not  even  breathe  into  their  nostrils;  He  does  not 
plant  a  garden  or  walk  therein.  He  speaks  and  it  is  done ;  He 
commands  and  it  stands  fast.  All  that  is  necessary  is  that  He 
should  say  let  there  be  light  and  the  light  is  there ;  let  there  be 
a  firmament  and  the  firmament  comes  into  being.  He  does  not 
experiment  with  His  material ;  each  class  of  creatures  comes  into 
being  according  to  a  progressive  scheme,  each  is  conformed  to 
a  type,  each  is  "  according  to  its  species,"  and  each  is  pro- 
nounced very  good  at  once.  Mythological  features  are  not  found. 
The  garden,  the  tree  of  life,  the  separate  formation  of  wo- 
man, the  serpent  as  the  tempter — all  these  have  disappeared. 
Moreover  the  order  of  creation  is  reversed.  It  is  no  longer  man 
and  then  the  animals;  it  is  first  inanimate  nature,  then  the  plants, 
then  the  lower  animals,  the  higher  animals,  finally  man  as  the  crown 
of  creation.  This  is  an  ordered,  one  might  properly  say  a  scien- 
tific, representation.  In  the  account  of  the  creation  of  man  we 
might  find  a  relic  of  the  older  anthropomorphism,  for  there  God 

1  The  theory  that  we  have  here  a  special  revelation  designed  to  show  us 
the  actual  process  of  creation  is  still  held  by  some  scholars,  or  was  until 
within  a  few  years ;  cf.  K&hler  Biblische  Gtschithte  des  Alten  Testaments, 
I,  p.  22  ff.  Of  the  enormous  difficulties  which  such  a  theory  meets  in  the 
opposition  of  geology,  biology,  and  astronomy  it  is  needless  to  speak. 


18  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

says  let  us  make  man  in  our  own  image.  No  doubt  the  author, 
in  accord  with  the  great  prophets  of  Israel,  conceived  God  as 
existing  in  human  form.  But  his  motive  here  is  to  emphasise 
the  supremacy  of  man  over  other  created  beings,  a  supremacy 
that  is  indicated  by  his  creation  in  the  divine  image.  Man 
rules  over  the  lower  animals  because  he  is  like  God,  and  be- 
cause he  has  received  the  divine  commission  to  subdue  the 
earth.1  Finally  an  entirely  new  feature  appears  in  this  account, 
for  the  creative  work  is  arranged  in  a  creative  week,  as  a  founda- 
tion for  the  religious  institution  of  the  Sabbath. 

These  striking  differences  show  that  our  author  rewrote  the 
account  of  the  creation  to  suit  the  advanced  theology  of  his  own 
times.  He  had  lost  appreciation  of  the  anthropomorphic  Yah- 
weh  of  the  earlier  time.  It  is  probable  that  he  had  lost  appre- 
ciation of  his  predecessor's  whole  philosophy.  To  him  the  hard 
lot  of  the  peasant  was  not  traceable  to  a  primeval  curse.  To 
him  it  seemed  necessary  that  a  good  God  should  make  every- 
thing good.  None  the  less  he  believed  in  a  degeneracy  of  the 
race  which  brought  punishment  in  the  shape  of  a  Deluge.  But 
this  was  a  gradual  decadence  extending  through  the  antedilu- 
vian period. 

It  has  become  certain  of  late  years  that  P  was  influenced  in  his 
account  of  the  creation  by  Babylonian  conceptions.  The  most 
distinct  evidence  of  this  is  his  use  of  the  word  Tehdm  for  the 
primeval  abyss.  This  word  is  the  Babylonian  Tiamat,  the  monster 
inimical  to  the  gods  whose  body  furnishes  the  material  of  the  visi- 
ble universe.  But,  as  compared  with  the  Babylonian  account,  the 
part  played  by  the  Tehdm  in  the  creation  is  insignificant.  The 
Babylonian  account  is  mythological  in  a  high  degree;  it  swarms 
with  gods,  demigods,  monsters.  The  Biblical  account  has  been 
divested  of  all  mythological  features.  Nevertheless  we  may  be 
sure  that  the  Babylonian  influence  is  present.  In  contrast  with  the 
story  of  J  which  makes  the  desert  the  type  of  the  original  chaos, 
we  find  in  P  that  the  earliest  of  all  things  is  the  ocean,  or  rather 
the  primeval  slime  from  which  water  and  dry  land  are  separated 
by  the  divine  fiat.  This  is  in  accordance  with  the  Babylonian 

1  According  to  the  Chaldean  mythology  men  are  intelligent  because 
made  (in  part)  of  the  blood  of  Bel.  Cf.  Zimmern,  Biblische  und  Babylon- 
ische  Urgeschichte,  p.  14.  The  example  shows  how  far  removed  our  author 
is  from  such  crude  speculations. 


THE   ORIGINS  19 

conception  where  Ocean  and  Tiamat  mingle  their  waters  at  the 
beginning  of  all  things. 

It  is  hardly  to  be  supposed  that  so  strict  a  Jew  as  the  Priestly 
author  was,  would  borrow  directly  from  Babylonian  mythology, 
for  this  would  be  an  abomination  to  him.  But  we  know  that 
Babylonian  influences  had  reached  Palestine  at  a  very  early  day. 
Doubtless  the  cosmology  had  passed  into  Hebrew  thought  and 
been  modified  long  before  our  author  put  his  story  into  shape. 
Phoenician  literature  shows  something  analogous.1 

The  curious  reader  may  ask  why  if  this  author  is  so  anxious  to 
represent  his  God  as  thoroughly  transcendent,  he  should  leave  so 
palpable  an  anthropomorphism  as  that  contained  in  the  sentence: 
Let  us  make  man  in  our  image.  For  it  will  be  held  that  here 
are  traces  of  other  heavenly  powers  with  whom  God  consults 
before  carrying  out  His  design.  In  reply  it  is  only  necessary  to 
notice  that  in  the  post-exilic  period,  in  which  P  belongs,  the 
doctrine  of  angels  was  already  well  developed.  Elohim  was 
indeed  transcendent.  But  He  had  a  heavenly  court  made  up  of 
these  high  officials,  with  whom  it  was  seemly  for  Him  to  take 
counsel  in  any  matter  of  importance.  It  is  only  to  mark  the  im- 
portance of  the  step  now  to  be  taken  that  He  here  departs  from 
His  usual  method.  Nor  does  He  yield  a  jot  of  His  pre-eminence 
by  so  doing.  The  angels  who  are  invited  to  co-operate  do  not 
actually  take  part  in  the  creation  of  man;  they  only  look  on  as 
witnesses  of  the  important  work  in  which  their  sovereign  is 
engaged. 

The  originality  of  P  is  perhaps  sufficiently  set  forth  in  what 

*Cf.  Baudissin,  Studien  tur  Semit.  Religionsgeschichte,  I  (1876),  p.  II; 
Dillmann,  Genesis  Critically  and  Exegetically  Expounded  (1897)  p.  33  S.  ; 
Duncker,  History  of  Antiquity,  I,  p.  353;  Holzinger,  Genesis  (Kurzer 
Handlcommentar),  p.  16  S.;  Jastrow,  Religion  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria 
(1899),  pp.  407-453 ;  Zimmern,  Biblische  und  Babylonische  Urgeschichte 
(1901).  Delitzsch,  Rabylonische  \Veltschdpfungsepos  (1896),  and  Schrader's 
Xeilinsch.  Bibliothek,  VI,  give  translations  of  the  Babylonian  texts. 
In  English  we  have  translations  of  the  Babylonian  account  of  the  creation  in 
Ball,  Light  from  the  East  (1899),  pp.  1-21  ;  Hogarth,  Authority  and  Archa- 
ology  (1899),  pp.  9-15;  Pinches,  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Light  of  the 
Historical  Records  of  Assyria  (1902),  pp.  18-56.  Cf.  also  Keilinschriften 
und  Altes  Testament*  p.  508  ff.  A  mythological  survival  in  the  Hebrew 
account  is  the  declaration  that  the  sun  was  made  to  rule  the  day  and  the 
moon  to  rule  the  night — language  that  is  intelligible  only  on  the  theory  that 
the  sun  and  moon  are  animated  beings — gods  or  demigods  (Zimmern). 


2O  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

has  been  said.  That  originality  is  seen  not  in  invention  of  new 
material  but  in  the  rearrangement  of  what  already  exists.  Prob- 
ably we  owe  to  him  the  arrangement  of  the  creative  work  in 
the  time  of  one  week.  It  has  often  been  remarked  that  his 
number  of  acts  of  creation  does  not  really  fit  his  scheme.  The 
actual  number  of  periods  is  eight,  so  that  he  is  obliged  to  crowd 
a  double  work  into  two  of  the  days.  He  seems  therefore  to  have 
taken  a  prior  account  which  arranged  the  creation  in  eight  acts. 
This  he  compressed  into  six  days  in  order  to  give  the  Sabbath 
for  rest.  That  God  rested  on  the  Sabbath  is  also  taught  in  one 
edition  of  the  Decalogue. 

The  period  between  Adam  and  Noah  is  filled  up  with  two 
genealogies,  one  of  Cain  and  one  of  Seth.1  The  latter  shows 
itself  to  belong  to  P  by  its  formal  and  statistical  character.  The 
author  is  careful  to  begin  by  a  repetition  of  the  language  he  has 
already  used  in  his  account  of  the  creation  of  man — that  he  was 
created  in  the  likeness  of  God,  that  they  were  created  male  and 
female,  and  that  God  had  blessed  them.  He  then  proceeds  with 
the  statement  that  Adam  lived  a  hundred  and  thirty  years,1  and 
begat  a  son  in  his  likeness.  This  phrase  does  not  recur  in  any  of 
the  following  generations,  and  its  omission  is  perhaps  an  indica- 
tion that  the  farther  men  removed  from  their  first  created  ances- 
tor the  less  they  had  of  the  divine  image.8  Ten  generations  are 
counted,  Noah  being  the  tenth.  Adam,  the  first,  was  created 
good ;  Noah,  the  last,  was  well  pleasing  to  God  ;  but  all  the 
race  in  Noah's  time  had  corrupted  its  way  so  that  a  Deluge  was 
sent  to  destroy  all  but  Noah  and  his  family.  As  this  author  ig- 
nored the  story  of  the  Fall  and  as  he  rejected  the  account  of  the 
angelic  marriages,  together  with  the  giant  progeny  thereof,  we 
must  assume  that  in  his  view  the  corruption  had  come  in  gradu- 
ally in  the  course  of  the  ten  generations.  It  is  in  accordance 
with  this,  that  we  are  expressly  pointed  to  two  men  in  the  list 
who  were  righteous  :  Enoch  walked  with  God,  and  for  his  blame- 
less life  was  translated.  It  is  difficult  to  see  why  this  should  be 
said  unless  it  was  thought  that  Enoch  was  removed  from  a  wicked 

1  Gen.  4  "-",  and  5  '-»». 

1  The  variations  in  the  different  texts  in  the  matter  of  numbers  will  b« 
considered  later. 

•  This  is  the  Rabbinical  notion,  Bereshith  Rabba  (Wunsche's  translation, 
p.  108). 


THE  ORIGINS  21 

and  perverse  generation.  Noah  also  is  declared  to  have  been 
righteous  among  his  contemporaries  and  to  have  walked  with 
God.1  Here  there  can  be  no  question  that  there  is  a  contrast 
pointed  out.  This  view  is  consistently  carried  out  by  the 
numbers  in  the  Samaritan  text,  which  make  the  three  men 
who  stand  nearest  to  Enoch,  namely :  Jared,  Methuselah,  and 
Lamech,  all  perish  in  the  Flood.  But  whether  this  proves 
the  numbers  of  the  Samaritan  to  be  the  original  is  open  to 
question. 

The  numbers  of  this  list  have  been  made  the  basis  of  chrono- 
logical systems  down  to  a  very  recent  time.1  It  is  impossible 
longer  so  to  use  them,  for  in  the  first  place  it  is  no  longer  possi- 
ble to  believe  that  the  lives  of  men  ever  extended  to  nine  hun- 
dred years  or  more,  and  secondly  we  cannot  believe  that  the 
creation  of  man  took  place  at  so  late  a  date  as  results  from  this 
genealogy,  whichever  text  we  follow.  The  apologetic  makeshift 
which  interprets  the  names  in  our  list  as  the  names  of  "  patriar- 
chal dynasties"  needs  no  refutation. 

But  while  rejecting  the  historicity  of  these  numbers  we  may 
yet  inquire  for  the  intention  of  the  author.  It  seems  altogether 
likely  that  he  was  proceeding  upon  a  theory.  The  round  num- 
ber ten  as  the  number  of  generations  in  the  first  period  of  the 
world's  history  indicates  as  much.  In  attempting  to  discover 
his  general  scheme,  we  are  hampered  by  the  differences  in  the 
texts  which  have  come  down  to  us.  The  Greek  translation  (in 
the  copies  most  current)  adds  a  hundred  years  to  the  period 
which  elapsed  in  each  man's  life  before  the  birth  of  his  first  son, 
except  in  the  case  of  two  names.  When  allowance  is  made  for 
minor  variations,  this  recension  has  still  added  nearly  eight  hun- 
dred years  to  the  period  between  the  Creation  and  the  Flood. 
On  the  other  hand  the  Samaritan  text  of  the  Pentateuch  shortens 

1  Gen.  6  *  a  sentence  of  P,  parallel  to  the  declaration  of  J  in  7  *. 

1  Christian  authors  have  generally  arranged  their  histories  of  the  world  on 
the  Biblical  scheme.  Thus  Eusebius  wrote  a  Chronicle  on  this  basis.  The 
difficulty  of  digesting  all  the  Biblical  data  into  a  consistent  whole  is  shown 
by  the  number  of  Biblical  chronologies  that  have  been  compiled.  An  ex- 
tended list  is  given  in  the  article  Zeitrechnungin  the  Protest.  Realtncyclapddie. 
The  system  most  widely  accepted  among  English-speaking  peoples  is  that  of 
Archbishop  Usher,  expounded  at  length  in  his  Chronologia  Sacra  (Works, 
Vols.  XI  and  XII)  and  forming  the  basis  of  his  Annalts  Satm  (Works, 
Vols.  VIII  and  IX). 


22  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

the  period  by  about  three  hundred  and  fifty  years.1  It  is  argued 
in  favour  of  the  Samaritan  form  of  the  table  that  it  is  more  sym- 
metrical, shortening  men's  lives  gradually  down  to  the  time  of 
Noah,  who  alone,  as  a  restorer  of  primitive  righteousness,  reaches 
the  age  of  Adam.  Consonant  with  this,  the  same  form  of  text 
makes  the  years  of  fatherhood  a  diminishing  series  down  to  Noah, 
who  again  forms  an  exception.  But  the  Greek  readings  have 
also  found  numerous  advocates.  As  pointed  out  by  Lagarde  * 
they  are  based  upon  a  system,  for  they  make  three  thousand 
years  to  have  elapsed  at  the  birth  of  Peleg  whose  name  (division) 
indicates  half  the  expected  duration  of  the  world — six  thou- 
sand years.  A  similar  calculation  lies  at  the  basis  of  the  received 
Hebrew  text,  for,  as  has  recently  been  shown,  its  author  intended 
to  date  the  building  of  Solomon's  Temple  three  thousand  years 
after  the  Creation.  On  the  whole  we  may  say  that  this  is  what 
we  should  expect  from  the  Priestly  author,  as  to  him  the  Temple 
was  really  the  centre  of  history.  We  need  not  be  surprised  to 
find  such  different  systems  imported  into  the  text  by  the  change 
of  its  readings,  for  the  later  Hebrew  literature  busied  itself  assid- 
uously with  dates  and  figures.*  Had  the  Priestly  author  carried 
his  work  beyond  the  Conquest,  we  should  be  more  certain  of  his 
theory. 

Babylonian  influences  seem  to  be  indicated  in  this  section  by 
the  ten  patriarchs,  for  Babylonian  legend  makes  ten  kings  to 
have  reigned*  in  the  antediluvian  period.  There  is  also  a  curi- 
ous coincidence  between  the  168  myriads  of  years  which  the 
Chaldean  account  assigns  to  the  creation  and  the  168  hours 
(seven  days)  which  the  Biblical  author  allows  for  the  same  event. 

1  Comparative  tables  showing  these  variations  are  given  by  Heidegger, 
ffistoria  Sacra  Patriarcharum,  Usher,  Chronologia  Sacra,  and  by  several 
of  the  more  recent  writers,  as  Budde,  Biblische  Urgeschichte. 

1  Symmicta,  I,  p.  52  f. 

*  On  the  three  thousand  years  from  the  Creation  to  the  Temple  cf.  Bousset 
in  the  Zeilschr.  fur  d.  Alttest.  Wissenschaft,  1900,  p.  136  ff.  The  three 
thousand  years  are  pointed  out  in  IV  Esdras,  while  the  Assumption  of 
Moses  apparently  indicates  the  same  figure.  The  Book  of  Jubilees  counts 
fifty  jubilee  periods  of  forty-nine  years  each  to  the  conquest  of  Canaan. 

4  According  to  Berossus.  No  correspondence  in  the  names  can  be  dis- 
covered. Professor  Hommel's  ingenious  attempt  in  the  Proceedings  of  the 
Society  of  Biblical  Archeology,  1893,  p  243  ff. ,  was  probably  not  intended 
to  be  taken  seriously.  Traces  of  Babylonian  influence  are,  however,  recog. 
nised  by  Gunkel,  Genesis,  p.  121  f. 


THE  ORIGINS  23 

We  can  scarcely  avoid  seeing  here  an  intentional  contradiction— 
the  power  of  God  was  such  that  He  did  in  an  hour  what  the  heathen 
mythologist  supposed  would  take  ten  thousand  years.  Other 
calculations  intended  to  bring  the  Hebrew  numbers  into  relation 
with  those  of  the  Chaldean  account  are  too  complicated  to  com- 
mand much  confidence.1  What  is  more  to  our  purpose  here  is 
the  evident  dependence  of  this  genealogy  upon  the  genealogy  of 
Cain  which  just  precedes  it  in  our  text.  Adam,  Enoch,  and 
Lamech  are  names  common  to  the  two  lists.  In  the  Greek  two 
others  are  alike,  a  fact  which  points  to  their  original  identity ; 
for  in  this  case  dissimilation  is  a  more  probable  result  of  trans- 
mission than  assimilation.  In  any  case  the  resemblance  of  Mehu- 
jael  to  Mahaleel,  of  Methushael  to  Methuselah,  of  Cainan  to  Cain 
is  sufficiently  striking  to  attract  our  attention.  Irad  and  Jared 
differ  by  only  a  letter,  and  Enosh  is  a  synonym  of  Adam.  These 
resemblances  and  identities  make  it  quite  certain  that  the  Priestly 
writer  has  copied  and  adapted  the  names  given  by  his  predeces- 
sor. Conjectures  which  find  in  these  names J  mythological 
survivals  should  therefore  be  applied  to  the  Cainite  table  only. 

Now  the  Cainite  table  is  apparently  a  Palestinian  production. 
Cain  the  son  of  Adam  must  be  the  progenitor  of  the  well-known 
Kenites,  the  friends  and  allies  of  Israel.3  Wanderers  and  nomads 
they  were  during  the  whole  history  of  Israel.  It  does  not  seem 
violent  to  see  in  the  other  names  of  the  list  clan  names.  In  fact 
we  find  Enoch  as  the  name  of  a  clan  of  Bedawin.*  7ra/can 
scarcely  be  distinguished  from  Arad,  a  district  of  the  Wilderness; 
but  such  districts  are  often  named  from  the  clans  that  inhabit 
them.  Tubal  has  been  recognised  as  the  eponym  of  the  Tibareni, 
while  Jabal  and  Jubal  are  expressly  called  fathers  of  tent-dwell- 

1  Still  it  is  remarkable  that  the  number  of  weeks  in  the  1656  years  of 
Genesis  is  the  number  of  five-year  periods  in  the  Chaldean  sum  (432,000 
years) ;  see  Marti's  article  Chronology  in  the  Encyclop.  Biblica.  Further- 
more, Enoch,  the  seventh  in  the  Biblical  list,  corresponds  to  the  seventh 
Babylonian  king  who  was  called  by  the  sun-god  into  his  presence,  and 
instructed  in  the  secrets  of  astronomy  and  astrology.  Zimmern,  Biblische 
und  Baby  1.  Urgesch.,  p.  29,  and  also  in  fCeilinsthriften  und  A  lies  Testa- 
ment* p.  540  ff. 

»Cf.,  for  example,  Ewald,  Geschithte*  I,  p.  383  (Eng.  Trans.  I.  p.  267  f.). 

'The  name  of  the  man  and  the  name  of  the  clan  are  exactly  the  same 
in  Hebrew,  notice  Num.  24  M,  Jd.  4  ". 

*  Gen.  25  * — a  son  of  Afidian  would  of  course  b«  a  clan  of  Bedawin. 


24  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

ing  and  music-loving  tribes.  Vanished  tribes,  like  Ad  and 
Thamud  in  Arabic  literature,  might  well  be  called  Mehujael 
(wiped  out  by  God)  and  Methushael  (man  of  Sheol). 

It  only  confirms  this  to  notice  that  Lamech  is  the  typical 
Bedawy.  In  possession  of  the  sword  invented  by  his  son,  the 
smith,  he  trusts  in  his  good  right  arm  to  avenge  him  on  his 
enemies : 

"  Hearken  to  my  voice,  wives  of  Lamech ! 

Give  ear  to  my  speech. 
I  shall  surely  slay  a  man  for  wounding  me, 

And  a  lad  for  striking  me ! 
If  Cain  is  avenged  sevenfold, 

Then  Lamech  seventy  and  seven. "  * 

The  ability  and  the  readiness  to  answer  blow  with  blow  and  to 
take  abundant  revenge  for  insults  are  admired  in  this  state  of 
society.  We  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  Lamech  here 
depicted  was  anything  but  an  admirable  character  to  the  earliest 
reciter  of  his  story.  The  theory  sometimes  advanced  that  Lamech 
is  introduced  as  the  inventor  of  polygamy,  and  that  he  is  con- 
demned for  his  innovation,  is  entirely  without  foundation. 

In  these  early  chapters  of  Genesis  we  thus  discover  various 
strata  of  tradition.  Perhaps  the  oldest  is  the  nomad  saga  of 
Cain.  According  to  this,  the  nomad  Cain  was  the  first-born  of 
Adam.  His  descendants  followed  their  father's  profession  down 
to  Lamech,  who  was  in  fierceness  and  strenuousness  all  that  the 
Bedawy  ought  to  be.  From  his  sons  sprang  the  various  divi- 
sions of  mankind — hereditary  guilds  of  herdsmen,  smiths,  and 
musicians.  With  this  nomad  saga  we  may  class  the  earliest 
creation  story,  for,  as  we  have  seen,  this  story  made  the  creation 
begin  with  the  uninhabitable  desert.  In  this  desert  Yahweh 
began  by  planting  a  garden.  If  the  desert  was  Northern  Arabia, 
the  Garden  was  probably  the  oasis  of  Damascus.1  In  the  Garden, 

1  Gen.  4  M  f.     The  Song  of  Lamech  has  given  rise  to  much  discussion.     I 
have  adopted  the  interpretation  of  Stade.     See  his  article  on  Das  Kains- 
ttichen  in  his  Zeitschrift,  1894,  1895,  reprinted  in  his  Ausgewahlte  Akadem- 
ische  Reden  und  Abhandlungett,  1899. 

2  The  description  of  the   Garden  and  its  four  rivers  in  Gen.  2  10"15  is  * 
later  insertion.      It  evidently  expresses   Babylonian   ideas  and  intends  to 
locate  Eden  in  Babylonia.     That  the  original  Hebrew  tradition  would  put 
the   creation  of  man   in   Syria  was  seen  by  earlier  authors  (as  Heidegger, 
Historia  Sacra  Patriarcharum,  pp.  126,  142).  The  only  Biblical  occurrence 


THE  ORIGINS  2$ 

man  was  too  ambitious.  He  aspired  after  the  knowledge  that 
should  make  him  like  God,  and  he  was  therefore  expelled.  A 
sign  was  granted  him,  however,  as  a  pledge  that  God  had  not  al- 
together deserted  him  amid  the  dangers  of  the  desert.  When 
the  race  began  to  multiply  on  earth  came  the  intermarriage  with 
the  jinn,  resulting  in  a  state  of  anarchy.  This  culminated  in  the 
building  of  the  tower  of  Babel — rumors  of  whose  vastness  must 
have  reached  the  desert-dwellers  far  and  wide.  Yahweh  inter- 
vened for  His  own  protection,  and  the  resulting  state  of  division 
among  men  has  continued  until  the  present  day.  In  this  narra- 
tive, Noah  appears  to  be  the  discoverer  of  the  vine  and  the 
progenitor  of  the  inhabitants  of  Canaan. 

The  Israelite  peasant  had  a  less  favourable  view  of  the  Bedawy 
and  his  life — marauding  and  murderous  as  he  knew  it  to  be.  To 
him  such  a  life  seemed  to  be  the  punishment  for  some  great  crime. 
Hence  the  author  who  gave  the  tradition  literary  form  injected 
into  the  narrative  the  story  of  Cain  and  Abel — what  more  likely 
than  the  murder  of  the  unoffending  Abel  by  the  Kenite  patriarch  ? 
In  the  light  of  this  story  the  mark  of  Cain  receives  a  new  signifi- 
cance, though  even  here  it  is  not  the  stigma  which  popular  inter- 
pretation makes  it.  The  author  who  made  this  insertion  had  re- 
ceived also  the  tradition  of  the  Deluge,  and  he  fitted  it  into  his 
narrative  as  best  he  might,  making  the  marriage  of  the  angels 
prepare  the  way  for  it. 

Some  time  later  P  took  up  the  subject.  The  treatment  was  too 
elaborate  and  too  mythological  for  him.  He  therefore  boldly  re- 
wrote the  whole  section.  After  the  Creation  he  needed  only  the 
genealogical  table,  whose  names  he  borrowed,  inserting  the  chron- 
ological data.  His  theory  of  the  freedom  of  the  will  probably 
accounts  for  his  making  the  corruption  of  mankind  a  gradual  proc- 
ess. In  the  course  of  ten  generations  corruption  became  rife  and 
the  Deluge  followed.  Cain  and  Abel  disappeared  and  Seth  alone 
remained  as  the  son  of  Adam  from  whom  all  mankind  are  derived. 

We  have  thus  representatives  of  various  schools  of  thought 

of  the  name  Eden  before  the  Exile  is  Am.  I  5  which  brings  it  into  connect- 
ion with  Damascus.  Further  discussion  of  the  location  of  Eden  would  be 
out  of  place  in  an  Old  Testament  History.  The  reader  may  consult  Fried- 
rich  Delitzsch,  Wo  Lag  das  Parodies?  (1881).  That  the  name  Eden  was 
also  Babylonian  is  probably  true,  see  Paton,  Early  History  of  Syria  and  Pal> 
tsttne,  p.  52. 


26  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

putting  before  us  their  theories  of  the  beginnings  of  mankind.1 
The  redactor  had  too  much  reverence  for  literature  to  take  sides 
with  either  against  the  other.  He  thought  it  a  pity  to  lose  either 
document.  He  therefore  combined  them  into  a  single  nar- 
rative. Doubtless  there  floated  more  or  less  distinctly  before 
his  mind  a  theory  which  has  been  widely  accepted  since  his  time 
— the  theory,  namely,  that  two  types  of  humanity  which  may  be 
labelled  the  good  and  the  bad,  or  the  pious  and  the  depraved, 
existed  from  the  beginning.  The  tribe  of  Cain  represents  the 
sinners,  the  ungodly,  the  heathen ;  while  in  the  tribe  of  Seth  we 
find  the  pious,  the  righteous,  the  people  of  God. 

Instead  of  information  concerning  the  beginning  of  things  we 
have  in  these  documents  therefore  a  revelation  of  the  progress  of 
religious  thought  in  Israel  from  the  mythologically  coloured  an- 
thropomorphism of  the  ninth  century  before  Christ  down  to  the 
transcendental  (if  somewhat  cold)  spiritual  philosophy  of  the  post- 
exilic  period.  It  has  already  been  remarked  that  mythological 
as  the  earliest  sources  appear  they  are  not  polytheistic.  In  each 
of  the  documents  Yahweh  alone  is  the  God  of  Israel,  and  He  is 
also  the  Creator  of  the  world  and  of  mankind.1 

The  end  of  the  first  age  of  the  world  is  marked  by  the  Flood  of 
Noah.  Our  account  of  it  is  made  up  from  two  documents  which 
we  naturally  suppose  to  be  the  continuation  of  the  two  hitherto 
considered.  There  is  indeed  considerable  ground  for  the  asser- 

1  The  reader  who  is  interested  in  the  various  points  of  view  now  com- 
bined in  our  book  of  Genesis  should  study  carefully  the  excellent  discussion 
of  Carpenter  and  Battersby  in  the  first  volume  of  their  work  The  Hexateuch 
(1900,  also  published  as  a  separate  volume),  especially  pp.  57  ff.,  121,  135  f.; 
and  Gunkel's  Legends  of  Genesis  (1902). 

1  Until  recent  times  all  attempts  to  present  Old  Testament  History  have 
gone  on  the  assumption  that  these  early  chapters  of  Genesis  were  a  record  of 
what  actually  took  place  at  the  beginning  of  the  world.  This  treatment  began 
with  Josephus  the  Jewish  historian,  who  paraphrased  the  Biblical  account  at 
the  opening  of  his  Antiquities.  Among  Christian  writers  who  have  followed 
this  method  maybe  mentioned  Sulpicius  Severus,  whose  two  books  of  Chron- 
icles were  widely  read  (Sulpicii  Scveri  Chronicorum  Libri  Duo,  Vindobonae, 
1866).  After  the  Reformation,  Biblical  history  was  treated  by  many  promi- 
nent theologians.  One  of  the  best  examples  is  Buddeus,  Historia  Ecclesias- 
tiea  Veteris  Testament,  1715,  often  reprinted.  The  latest  endeavour  to  con- 
struct a  history  on  this  theory  is  that  of  Kohler,  Lehrbuch  der  Biblischen 
Geschiehte  Alien  Testaments,  1875-1893.  In  the  first  chapter  of  this  work 
there  is  an  extended  bibliography  of  the  subject.  Recent  authors  usually 
begin  their  history  at  a  later  period. 


THE  ORIGINS  2/ 

tion  that  the  earliest  Yah  wist  had  no  knowledge  of  a  Deluge.1 
But  in  the  expanded  form  of  his  narrative  which  was  wrought  in- 
to our  Genesis  the  Deluge  was  already  contained.  We  have  no 
difficulty  in  dissecting  out  his  story.  In  immediate  connection 
with  the  account  of  the  marriage  of  the  Sons  of  God  and  the 
daughters  of  men  we  have  a  strong  statement  of  the  corruption  of 
the  earth  :  "  Yahweh  saw  that  the  evil  of  man  was  great  and 
every  purpose  of  his  mind  was  only  evil  all  the  time."1  This 
state  of  things  is  so  distasteful  to  Yahweh  that  He  repents  of  hav- 
ing made  man  and  resolves  to  wipe  out  the  race.  Noah  alone 
finds  favour  with  Him  and  is  made  an  exception.  He  receives 
the  command  to  build  an  ark,1  and  when  it  is  completed  has 
seven  days'  warning,  within  which  period  he  brings  in  the  ani- 
mals as  he  is  commanded.  There  are  to  be  seven  of  each  species 
of  clean,  and  two  of  each  species  of  unclean  animals.  This  is  to 
provide  for  sacrificial  worship  after  the  Flood,  and  the  form  of  the 
command  shows  this  writer's  theory  (known  also  from  the  account 
of  Cain  and  Abel)  that  sacrifice  is  as  old  as  the  race. 

At  the  end  of  the  seven  days  Noah  and  his  family  enter  the 
ark  and  the  rain  begins.  The  rain  continues  forty  days  and  the 
waters  swell  steadily  for  this  period.  Yahweh  thus  blots  out  all 
that  He  has  made  from  the  face  of  the  ground.  As  the  waters  are 
forty  days  in  swelling  they  are  also  forty  days  in  ebbing.4  Noah 
then  sends  out  the  raven,  but  is  apparently  convinced  that  this 
bird  is  not  the  right  one  to  give  him  the  information  he  desires. 
He  therefore  sends  out  the  dove  (seven  days  later)  who  returns 
to  him  at  evening.  After  another  interval  of  seven  days  he 
makes  another  attempt  with  the  dove  and  is  rewarded  with  a 

1  It  is  difficult  to  see  what  interest  an  author  would  have  had  in  a  gene- 
alogy of  Cain,  and  in  the  developing  civilisation  of  his  descendants  if  that 
whole  race  was  to  be  exterminated  by  the  Deluge. 

*This  declaration  (Gen.  6s)  follows  now  upon  the  statement  that  the 
Nephilim  were  on  the  earth  in  thor e  days,  and  that  these  were  the  mighty 
men  that  were  of  old  time.  As  the  account  now  reads,  therefore,  the  cor- 
ruption of  man  is  the  sequel  of  the  marriage  of  the  angels  with  human  wives. 
Whether  this  was  the  idea  of  the  earliest  writer  is  doubtful. 

*The  command  to  build  the  ark  as  originally  contained  in  J  is  now  lost, 
having  been  displaced  by  the  account  of  P.  \Ve  must  remember  the  redac- 
tor's method — to  make  P  the  framework  into  which  so  much  of  J  was 
fitted  as  was  possible. 

4  Such  I  take  to  be  the  meaning  of  8 ' ;  the  original  datum  has  been  dis- 
placed. 


28  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

freshly  plucked  olive  leaf.  After  another  week  he  is  convinced 
that  it  is  time  to  leave  the  ark.  His  first  act  is  a  sacrifice,  on 
reception  of  which  Yahweh  vows  never  to  repeat  the  destruction. 

The  resemblance  between  the  Biblical  account  and  a  Baby- 
lonian story  has  been  known  ever  since  the  days  of  Berossus,  a 
Babylonian  priest  who  wrote  a  history  of  his  own  people  in  the 
fourth  century  B.C.  His  account  of  the  Flood  shows  the  follow- 
ing points  of  resemblance  to  the  one  we  have  been  considering : 
(a)  the  hero  Xisuthrus  is  the  tenth  in  the  line  of  kings  which 
begins  with  the  Creation,  as  Noah  is  the  tenth  from  Adam;  (b) 
the  deity  commands  him  to  build  a  ship,  and  to  take  into  it  his 
friends  and  relations  with  everything  necessary  to  sustain  life,  as 
well  as  animals,  both  birds  and  quadrupeds ;  (c)  the  command 
is  carried  out  and  the  flood  visits  the  earth;  (d)  afterward  Xisu- 
thrus sends  out  some  birds  to  see  whether  the  waters  have  disap- 
peared, an  experiment  which  he  repeats  the  second  time,  when 
they  come  back  with  mud  on  their  feet,  and  a  third  time,  when 
they  return  no  more ;  (e)  on  quitting  the  vessel,  Xisuthrus  offers 
sacrifice  to  the  gods;  (f)  the  mountain  on  which  the  ark  stranded 
is  in  Armenia. 

The  original  Babylonian  texts  now  in  our  possession  confirm 
the  account  of  Berossus,  though,  as  we  should  expect,  they  are 
more  highly  mythological  than  his  reproduction.  From  them 
we  learn  that  the  destruction  of  mankind  was  determined  by  a 
council  of  all  the  gods.  But  Ea  ventured  to  disregard  the  will 
of  the  majority  and  resolved  to  save  his  favourite.  This  hero l  re- 
ceives in  a  dream  the  command  to  build  the  ship.  He  builds  it 
and  makes  it  tight  with  asphalt.  The  rain  which  comes  on  after 
he  enters  the  ark  is  described  most  vividly  —  Rammam*  the 
thunderer  makes  his  voice  heard  ;  black  clouds  overspread  the 
heavens ;  the  furies  (Annunaki )  bear  about  the  torches  of  the 
lightning.  The  gods  themselves  cower  before  the  storm  and  seek 
refuge  in  the  upper  heaven.  Ishtar  shrieks  at  the  loss  of  her 
worshippers.  Seven  days  of  such  violence  are  enough  to  accom- 
plish the  object.  After  the  ark  strands  upon  the  mountain  called 

1  His  name  is  given  in  different  forms  by  the  Assyriologists,  Ut-napishtim 
is  given  by  Jensen.  Ball  (Light  from  the  East,  1899)  makes  it  Nuh- 
napishtim.  Pinches  (Old  Test,  in  the  Light  of  the  Historical  Records  of 
Assyria  and  Babylon,  1902)  returns  to  the  earlier  form  Pir-napishtim. 

'According  to  Winckler;  the  god  is  called  Adad  by  Jensen. 


THE   ORIGINS  29 

Nisir,  the  hero  waits  seven  days  and  then  sends  out  in  succession 
a  dove,  a  swallow,  and  a  raven — at  what  intervals  we  are  not  told. 
When  he  comes  out  he  offers  a  sacrifice,  over  which  the  gods 
gather  like  flies  to  enjoy  the  sweet  odour.  Bel  alone  is  angry 
that  a  human  being  has  escaped,  but  at  the  intercession  of  Ea  he 
is  appeased  and  raises  the  builder  of  the  ark,  his  wife,  and  the 
steersman  to  the  rank  of  gods.1 

The  resemblances  between  the  Hebrew  and  the  Babylonian 
account  are  so  marked  that  we  conclude  one  must  be  borrowed 
from  the  other.  It  is  plain  that  the  Babylonian  is  the  original. 
The  attempt  to  trace  both  to  a  common  source  in  primitive 
Semitic  tradition  is  unsuccessful.  The  Hebrew  text  cannot  be 
older  than  the  ninth  century  B.C.  The  Babylonian,  from  which 
it  was  borrowed,  is  part  of  a  great  epic  poem  which  must  have 
had  a  complicated  literary  history.  The  epic  did  not  treat  the 
same  problem  which  the  Hebrew  writer  had  in  mind.  The 
repopulation  of  the  world  after  the  Deluge  is  quite  lost  sight  of 
in  the  account  of  Xisuthrus.  His  life  is  recounted  to  show  that 
one  and  another  of  the  children  of  man  has  escaped  death  and 
been  transported  to  the  dwelling  of  the  gods.  But  this  is  only 
to  show  Gilgamesh,  the  real  hero  of  the  poem,  that  death  is  in 
fact  the  universal  lot — the  exceptions  only  prove  the  rule.  It 
would  be  wrong  to  say  then  that  the  Babylonian  tradition  con- 
cerns a  total  destruction  of  mankind  and  a  new  head  of  the  race. 
So  far  as  appears,  it  did  not  regard  the  destruction  of  mankind  as 
complete,  and  it  certainly  did  not  make  the  new  race  begin  with 
the  hero  who  escaped  the  Flood. 

What  the  account  shows  is  that  a  Hebrew  author  took  the 
story,  closely  following  its  details,  from  Babylonian  sources  and 
adapted  it  to  his  purpose.  It  is  unnecessary  for  us  to  inquire 
for  the  historical  content  of  the  Hebrew  story.  The  occasion 

'The  fragments  of  Berossus  are  given  in  Cory's  Ancient  Fragments  (1833) 
and  in  Winckler's  Keilinschriftliches  Textbueh  (1892).  A  translation  may 
be  found  in  Lenormant's  Beginnings  of  History  (N.  Y.,  1882).  The  Cunei- 
form text,  which  is  part  of  the  Gilgamesh  epic,  is  published  in  transliteration, 
with  translation  by  Haupt,  in  Schrader's  JCeilinschriften  und  Altes  Testa- 
ment'1 (1883,  also  in  English  translation,  The  Cuneiform  Inscriptions  and 
the  Old  Testament,  1885-88),  by  Winckler  in  his  Textbueh  and  by  Jensen 
in  the  Keilinschriftliche  Bibliothek,  VI  (1900).  Compare  also  Jastrow's 
Religion  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria  (1898)  pp.  495-506  and  the  book  of 
Pinches  cited  in  the  preceding  note. 


JO  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

of  the  Babylonian  original  may  have  been  some  frightful  rain- 
storm followed  by  widespread  inundation  of  the  Euphrates  valley. 
We  may  well  excuse  ourselves  also  from  the  task  of  defending 
the  accuracy  of  the  account,  and  from  the  attempt  to  prove  that 
a  vessel  of  the  size  of  Noah's  could  contain  all  that  it  was  built 
to  contain.1  Nor  need  we  spend  time  on  the  question  of  the 
universality  of  the  Deluge.  No  doubt  the  author  supposed  it  to 
cover  the  entire  surface  of  the  earth.  Nor  can  we  argue  either 
the  universality  or  the  actuality  of  the  catastrophe  from  the 
number  of  Deluge  stories  that  have  been  discovered  in  various 
quarters  of  the  globe.2  If  the  tradition  arose  in  Babylonia  from 
an  inundation  of  the  Euphrates,  similar  stories  are  likely  to  arise 
in  the  valley  of  any  great  river.  We  are  not  surprised,  therefore, 
to  find  a  Deluge  story  in  China,  where  the  Hoangho  has  so 
frightfully  devastated  the  land  many  times  since  history  began 
to  be  written,  or  in  the  valley  of  the  Ganges.  It  is  noticeable, 
however,  that  Egypt  knows  no  Deluge,  because  the  overflow  of 
the  Nile  is  a  beneficent  instead  of  a  destructive  episode.  If  there 
were  a  universal  primitive  tradition,  we  should  expect  to  find  it 
in  Egypt,  so  that  the  argument  from  silence  has  great  weight.* 

Two  forms  of  the  story  deserve  brief  notice.  One  is  the  Syr- 
ian, alluded  to  in  connection  with  the  sanctuary  at  Hierapolis, 
where  the  cleft  in  the  earth  was  pointed  out  through  which  the 
great  flood  had  passed  into  the  earth.*  From  the  locality  in 
which  this  tradition  is  found  we  have  no  difficulty  in  supposing 
Babylonian  influence.  The  more  famous  story  is  that  of  Deuka- 
lion,  which  also,  in  the  form  in  which  it  has  comedown  to  us,  may 
have  felt  Babylonian  influence.  In  its  main  stock,  however,  the 

1  An  elaborate  argument  of  this  kind  is  contained  in  Lilienthal,  Gute  Sache 
der  Gottlichcn  OJfenbarung ,  V  (1754).  Of  course  the  extension  of  our  zoo- 
logical knowledge  makes  such  an  attempt  increasingly  difficult. 

1  Perhaps  the  most  elaborate  argument  of  this  kind  is  Harcourt's  Doctrine 
of  the  Deluge  (2  vols.,  1838),  which,  however,  suffers  from  a  vicious  method. 
The  author  strives  to  force  the  most  irrelevant  traditions,  names,  and  customs 
into  support  of  his  thesis. 

*  The  Flood  legends  are  collected  in  a  little  book  by  Andree,  Die  Flut- 
sagen  (1891),  and  are  compendiously  treated  by  Diestel,    Die  Sintflut  und 
die  Flutsagen  des  Alter  turns  (1876). 

*  The  treatise  on  the  Syrian  Goddess  ascribed  to  Lucian  gives  this  story, 
and  names  Deukalion  as  the  hero  of  the  Flood.     But  the  name  Deukalion  is 
probably  introduced  for  the  sake  of   Greek  readers.     The  reference  is  Dt 
Syria  Dea.  J2.  13. 


THE   ORIGINS  31 

story  of  Deukalion  is  a  purely  Greek  myth,  having  nothing  to  do 
with  a  Deluge.  Greek  mythology  knows  of  a  number  of  gods 
and  heroes  carried  in  chests  or  arks  across  the  sea.  The  germ  of 
these  representations  is  the  rising  of  the  sun  out  of  the  sea  and 
his  triumphant  progress  across  its  waves  shown  in  the  glancing  of 
his  light  from  crest  to  crest.  That  the  Greek  Deukalion  is  one  of 
these,  seems  evident  from  the  name.1  In  this  view  it  is  significant 
that  Xisuthrus  in  Babylonia,  and  Manu  in  the  Indian  story  are  also 
gods.  The  common  origin,  if  there  be  one,  is  in  a  myth  of  the 
sun  god.  But  further  discussion  of  this  phase  of  the  subject 
does  not  belong  here.1 

Heretofore  we  have  considered  only  the  earlier  form  of  the 
Hebrew  Flood  story — the  one  recorded  by  J.  The  Priestly 
writer,  however,  also  treated  the  subject.  In  fact  it  fitted  in  ex- 
cellently with  his  conception  of  God  as  the  almighty  Judge  of 
mankind.  His  account  is  apparently  preserved  for  us  entire,  and 
it  differs  from  that  of  his  predecessor  by  its  detailed  and  schematic 
character.  He  makes  it  a  distinct  chapter  of  his  work,  under  the 
title  of  the  Genealogy  of  Noah.  He  enumerates  the  sons  of  Noah 
and  gives  their  names.  The  dimensions  of  the  ark,  its  division 
into  storys,  and  its  materials  are  also  given.  The  door  and  the 
window*  are  mentioned. 

The  thoroughness  of  the  destruction  is  stated  in  unmistakable 
language.  But  where  the  earlier  account  commands  that  seven 
animals  of  the  kind  fit  for  sacrifice  be  brought  into  the  ark  with 
two  of  other  species,  this  author  makes  no  distinction,  bringing  in 
a  single  pair  of  each  kind.  The  kinds  are  enumerated  in  language 
that  reminds  us  of  this  author's  account  of  the  creation  :  "Of 
birds  after  their  kind  and  of  cattle  after  their  kind,  and  of  all  the 
creepers  of  the  ground  after  their  kind."  *  Behind  this  alteration 

1  Deukalion  is  a  diminutive  of  Zeus.  The  whole  subject  is  discussed  in 
the  most  interesting  manner  by  Usenet,  Religionsgeschichtliche  Untersuch- 
ungen  III  (1899),  cf.  also  Encyc.  Biblica,  I,  Col.  1059. 

1  Besides  the  literature  already  cited  the  student  may  consult  the  commen- 
taries on  Genesis,  and  especially  Buttmann's  Mythologus,  I,  p.  180  ff.  Butt- 
mann  may  be  said  to  have  begun  the  scientific  study  of  the  subject. 

1  The  word  for  window  indeed  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  Old  Testament, 
but  the  author  who  reflected  on  all  the  details  must  have  supposed  light  ne- 
cessary to  the  inmates  of  the  great  chest. 

4  Gen.  6**,  cf.  also  7".  It  is,  of  course,  very  possible  that  P  based  his  ac- 
count on  some  Flood  story  that  has  not  been  preserved  to  us.  Cf.  Gunkel, 
Genesis,  p.  92. 


32  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

of  his  predecessor's  data  is  the  theory  that  sacrifice  was  not  offered 
until  the  giving  of  the  Law.  A  marked  feature  of  this  account 
is  the  Chronology.  The  beginning  of  the  Deluge  is  dated  in  the 
six  hundredth  year  of  Noah's  life,  in  the  second  month,  the 
seventeenth  day  of  the  month.  As  the  year  probably  began  in 
the  autumn,  the  season  of  the  opening  Flood  would  be  that  of  the 
winter  rains.1  The  culmination  of  the  waters  is  dated  on  the 
seventeenth  day  of  the  seventh  month.  The  first  stage  of  their 
recession  is  marked  at  the  first  day  of  the  tenth  month.  The  com- 
plete disappearance  of  the  waters  is  recorded  on  the  first  day  of 
the  new  year,  and  Noah's  exit  from  the  ark  takes  place  on  the 
twenty-seventh  of  the  second  month.  The  whole  duration  of 
the  Flood  is  therefore  one  year  and  ten  days. 

It  is  generally  conceded  that  the  author  intends  to  indicate  an 
exact  solar  year  by  his  calculation ;  for  a  solar  year  is  about  ten 
days  more  than  twelve  lunations.  That  the  early  Hebrews  cal- 
culated the  month  by  observation  of  the  moon  is  well  known. 
It  was  forcibly  brought  to  their  attention,  therefore,  that  the  solar 
year,  necessarily  at  the  basis  of  the  agricultural  calendar,  did  not 
fit  in  with  the  lunar  computation.  The  intercalation  of  an  addi- 
tional month  was  the  method  taken  *  to  bring  them  into  har- 
mony. All  that  we  are  now  interested  to  observe  is  that  our 
author  makes  the  solar  year  twelve  months  and  ten  days.  In 
fact  the  excess  of  the  solar  year  above  twelve  lunations  is  about 
eleven  days.  But  as  we  have  elsewhere  an  obstinate  defence  of 
a  year  of  364  days  we  may  assume  that  Jewish  tradition  had 
fixed  upon  this  number  in  defiance  of  exact  astronomical  obser- 
vation.8 More  difficulty  is  made  by  his  reckoning  five  months 
at  a  hundred  and  fifty  days,  as  he  is  seen  to  do  when  we  com- 
pare Gen.  7  M  with  8 8.  Either  he  was  here  influenced  by  the 

1  According  to  P  the  reckoning  of  the  spring  month  Abib  as  the  be- 
ginning of  the  year  dates  from  Moses.  The  Babylonian  account  makes 
the  Flood  begin  in  winter.  Ci".  Encyc.  Bib.,  I,  Col.  1059. 

1  So  we  judge  from  the  Talmud.  There  is  no  Old  Testament  affirmation 
on  the  subject. 

*  The  Book  of  Jubilees  explicitly  declares  that  a  year  is  364  days,  that  is, 
exactly  fifty-two  weeks.  This  seems  to  be  an  a  priori  affirmation — God 
would  make  His  year  an  exact  number  of  weeks,  the  week  being  the  founda- 
tion of  His  calendar.  The  book  of  Enoch  is  also  tenacious  of  a  year  of  364 
days.  Both  these  books  rest  upon  the  account  in  Genesis,  as  is  shown  by 
Bacon,  Hebraica  VIII,  p.  126. 


THE   ORIGINS  33 

alleged  Babylonian  custom  of  counting  thirty  days  to  a  month, 
or  else  more  than  one  hand  has  been  concerned  in  the  nar- 
rative. 

As  we  should  expect  from  this  author's  larger  conception  of 
the  power  of  God,  his  account  is  more  distinctly  miraculous  than 
that  of  his  predecessor.  The  rain,  however  violent,  is  not  enough 
(as  he  supposes)  to  bring  about  the  flood.  The  windows  of  the 
great  celestial  storehouse  of  water  are  therefore  opened  and  the 
fountains  of  the  subterranean  reservoir  burst  out.  In  accordance 
with  the  greatness  of  the  calamity  is  the  completeness  of  the  de- 
struction: "And  there  died  all  flesh  that  moves  on  the  earth,  birds 
and  cattle  and  wild  animals  and  the  swarming  life  on  the  earth, 
as  well  as  all  mankind."  The  height  of  the  waters  is  not  left  to 
the  imagination — fifteen  cubits  above  the  highest  mountain  satis- 
fies all  the  requirements.  Another  miraculous  feature  seems  to 
be  that  P  makes  the  animals  come  to  Noah  at  the  time  they  are 
needed,  without  any  effort  on  his  part  to  collect  them. 

So  far,  the  narrator  has  simply  rewritten  the  story  according 
to  his  presuppositions.  One  detail  remains  in  which  he  has 
enriched  the  text ;  after  the  Deluge  God  makes  a  covenant  with 
Noah — or  rather  grants  a  covenant  to  Noah,  for  in  P  the  Deity 
never  appears  as  one  of  the  contracting  parties  to  an  agreement ; 
He  imposes  regulations  or  grants  privileges  as  the  Sovereign  of  the 
universe.  The  constitution  here  imposed  extends  the  rights  of 
man  over  the  animals  so  that  he  may  use  them  as  food.  With 
the  permission  comes,  however,  a  strict  prohibition  of  the  eating  of 
blood.  This  is  in  accordance  with  P's  theory  that  the  Law  was 
the  culmination  of  God's  revelations  to  mankind,  and  that  it  was 
preceded  by  rudimentary  regulations  designed  to  lead  up  to  it. 
On  this  theory  antediluvian  man  received  the  fruits  as  his  por- 
tion, with  no  legislation  except  the  command  to  subdue  the 
earth  to  cultivation.  Noah  received  permission  to  eat  flesh,  ac- 
companied by  a  prohibition  of  blood  and  of  murder.  Abraham 
received  the  ordinance  of  circumcision  with  a  strict  command  to 
observe  it.  Moses  received  the  full  legal  system.  It  does  not 
seem  out  of  place,  therefore,  that  this  arrangement  is  recorded 
here.  The  eating  of  blood  was  so  abhorrent  to  the  Jew  that  he 
could  not  suppose  it  was  ever  allowed  even  to  the  Gentile  world. 
Possibly  our  author  was  aware  that  in  some  Gentile  religions  the 
eating  of  blood  was  regarded  as  sacrilegious.  It  would  be  easy 


34  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

for  him  to  conclude  that  mankind  had  received  the  prohibition 
before  the  dispersion  of  the  descendants  of  Noah. 

At  first  sight  it  seems  highly  mythological,  and  therefore  con- 
trary to  the  view  of  P,  that  the  rainbow  is  introduced  as  the  sign 
of  the  covenant.  It  is,  of  course,  possible  that  this  item  was 
originally  in  J,  and  copied  from  him  by  P.  The  bow  was 
originally  the  bow  of  the  Thunderer,  which  he  laid  aside  at  the 
conclusion  of  the  storm.  This  is  its  real  mythological  interpre- 
tation, and  in  this  view  of  it  we  see  how  far  our  author  is  from 
the  original  mythology.  To  him  the  bow  has  become  simply  the 
sign  of  the  covenant — just  as  circumcision  is  in  the  divine  good 
pleasure  made  a  sign  of  the  covenant  with  Abraham.  From  this 
point  of  view  the  bow  has  a  reason  for  existence  in  the  account  in 
which  we  find  it.  Babylonian  or  Assyrian  parallels  have  not  yet 
been  discovered.  Nor  can  we  say  in  general  that  the  details  of 
P  show  Babylonian  influence.1 

Our  examination  of  the  story  of  the  Deluge  confirms  what  we 
discovered  in  regard  to  the  account  of  the  Creation.  Histori- 
cal, it  cannot  be  called.  In  its  origin  it  is  mythological,  with  a 
possible  early  inundation  of  the  Euphrates  as  its  basis  in  actual 
occurrence.  From  Babylon  it  wandered  to  the  west  and  was 
naturalised  in  Canaan.  An  early  Israelite  writer  stripped  it  of 
its  polytheism  and  made  it  tell  of  the  justice  of  Yahweh  upon  a 
race  of  aggressors.  After  the  Exile  the  Priestly  author,  finding 
it  too  primitive  in  its  theology,  pruned  it  of  its  more  anthropo- 
morphic features  and  made  it  introduce  God's  earliest  covenant. 
A  redactor,  to  whom  we  cannot  be  too  grateful,  thought  it  a  pity 
to  lose  either  story,  and  combined  the  two  in  a  single  narrative. 
History  of  the  world  is  not  given  by  it ;  history  of  Israel's  tradi- 
tion is  here  in  abundance. 

1  Of  course  we  do  not  know  what  Assyriology  may  yet  have  in  store  for 
as.  Jensen  (Encyc.  Bib.,  I,  col.  1060)  supposes  the  rainbow  to  belong  to  J 
originally.  It  should  be  remarked  that  the  prohibition  of  blood  is  supposed 
by  some  to  be  a  later  insertion;  cf.  Holzinger  in  Marti,  Handkommentar. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE    PATRIARCHS 

THE  greater  part  of  the  Book  of  Genesis  is  taken  up  with  the 
history  of  the  Patriarchs.  After  the  confusion  of  tongues  the 
next  great  event  is  the  call  of  Abraham.  In  obedience  to  this 
call  he  leaves  the  East  and  comes  to  Canaan.  What  follows  is 
the  family  history  of  the  progenitors  of  Israel,  ending  with  the 
settlement  of  the  whole  clan  in  Egypt.  Abraham  himself  lives 
the  nomad  life  in  Canaan.  He  pitches  his  tent  at  different  points 
from  Shechem  to  the  border  of  Egypt,  on  occasion  going  into 
Egypt  itself.  Isaac  leads  a  more  settled  life,  being  found  for  the 
most  part  in  the  Negeb  or  South  Country.  Jacob  is  a  man  of 
many  wanderings,  spending  his  youth  in  Canaan,  but  going  to 
the  East  for  his  wives,  returning  to  Canaan  with  great  possessions, 
and  emigrating  to  Egypt  in  his  old  age. 

The  many  duplicates  in  the  story  and  the  inconsistencies  of 
its  parts  cause  us  to  pursue  the  analysis  which  we  have  already 
begun.  It  is  not  difficult  to  discover  the  main  strands  of  the  nar- 
rative, which  have  now  become  three  in  number.  The  frame- 
work continues  to  be  furnished  by  the  Priestly  writer,  whose 
fondness  for  numbers  and  for  orderly  arrangement  we  have  had 
occasion  to  notice.  If  we  had  his  book  alone,  our  material 
would  be  very  limited.  In  the  life  of  Abraham  he  begins  with  a 
genealogy  which  gives  the  Patriarch  his  place  in  the  line  of  Seth. 
The  emigration  from  Ur-Kasdim  to  Haran  and  from  Haran  to 
Canaan  is  narrated  very  briefly.  The  separation  from  Lot  re- 
quires but  a  single  sentence.  The  only  incidents  of  importance 
to  the  writer  are  :  the  covenant  between  God  and  the  Patriarch, 
which  is  ratified  by  the  seal  of  circumcision ;  the  promise  of  a 
son,  which  is  followed  by  the  birth  of  Isaac ;  and  the  death  of 
Sarah,  which  gives  occasion  for  the  purchase  of  the  cave  of 
Machpelah.  This  can  hardly  be  called  a  life  of  Abraham ;  it 
is  the  barest  outline  designed  to  embody  a  theory  of  universal 
history. 

35 


36  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

Isaac  and  Jacob  inherit  the  promises — this  is  about  all  we  can 
say  of  them  as  they  appear  in  the  sketch  of  P.  The  older  stories 
were  not  wanting  in  details  that  gave  offence  to  the  later  writer. 
Hence  his  bare  mention  of  Isaac,  and  the  summary  way  in  which 
Jacob  is  treated.  This  father  of  the  tribes  is  sent  to  the  East  to 
get  a  wife  of  kindred  blood.  The  return  is  followed  by  a  reve- 
lation at  Bethel,  with  the  change  of  name  from  Jacob  to  Israel. 
The  story  of  Joseph  shrinks  to  a  mere  allusion,  but  we  receive  a 
list  of  Jacob's  descendants,  and  are  told  of  his  death  and  burial. 

This  outline  shows  that  we  cannot  depend  upon  P  for  historical 
material.  His  interest  is  not  at  all  in  the  life  of  the  Patriarchs, 
and  indeed  his  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  are  without  individu- 
ality and  without  life.  Very  different  is  the  impression  made 
when  we  turn  to  the  other  documents,  or  the  composite  narrative 
into  which  they  have  been  woven.  Here,  at  any  rate,  is  life,  and 
here  is  colour.  We  are  admitted  to  the  family  of  the  heroes, 
hear  their  prevarications  and  quarrels,  see  the  sanctuaries  at  which 
they  worship,  admire  the  hospitality  of  Abraham  and  his  faith, 
follow  with  breathless  attention  the  romantic  fortunes  of  Joseph, 
and  rejoice  with  him  when  he  welcomes  his  aged  father  to  a  new 
home.  The  charm  and  power  of  these  stories  are  attested  by  the 
hold  they  have  had  upon  a  hundred  generations  of  readers. 

In  the  troublesome  task  of  getting  at  real  history,  however,  we 
are  confronted  at  once  by  difficulties.  The  El-Amarna  tablets 
show  us  the  condition  of  Canaan  at  the  time  when  our  docu- 
ments suppose  the  Patriarchs  to  be  sojourning  there.  We  learn 
that  the  country  was  thickly  settled,  the  inhabitants  living  in 
fortified  towns  which  were  often  at  war  with  each  other.  Nomad 
tribes  were  pressing  in  from  the  desert,  making  the  open  country 
unsafe,  and  even  compelling  the  towns  to  make  terms  with  them. 
This  state  of  things  seems  to  have  been  chronic.  It  leaves  no 
place  for  the  peaceable  immigrant  like  Abraham.  For  the  most 
striking  thing  about  our  stories  is  the  absence  of  real  warfare. 
The  authors  are  indeed  aware  that  the  Canaanite  was  then  in  the 
land,  but  the  knowledge  has  left  scarcely  a  trace  on  the  narrative. 
When  Abraham  and  Lot,  with  their  flocks  and  herds,  separate,  it 
is  only  because  the  land  is  not  able  to  bear  them ;  that  is,  be- 
cause there  is  not  pasture  enough  for  the  cattle.  Never  a  word 
is  there  of  Canaanitish  opposition  to  such  overrunning  of  the 
country.  The  eternal  feud  between  the  cultivator  and  the  shep- 


THE   PATRIARCHS  37 

herd  is  known  to  us  in  later  times.  We  are  sure  that  a  nomad 
clan  could  not  occupy  the  pasture  lands  except  at  the  point  of 
the  sword.  But  Abraham's  sword  nowhere  appears  in  the  nar- 
rative. There  might  be  an  arrangement  such  as  at  a  later  time 
existed  between  the  Kenites  and  the  Hebrews.  But  this  is  a  cove- 
nant relation,  and  Abraham  never  enters  into  covenant  with  the 
Canaanites.  There  is  a  covenant  relation  established  between 
Abraham  (or  Isaac)  and  Abimelech  at  Gerar.1  But  even  this 
covenant  only  establishes  the  title  to  some  wells.  It  could  not 
give  the  nomads  general  rights  of  pasture  throughout  the  country. 
The  picture  presented  by  the  authors  of  Genesis  seems  to  as- 
sume that  the  Patriarchs  moved  about  the  country,  finding  no 
let  or  hindrance  from  anyone.  They  built  altars,  and  so  estab- 
lished sanctuaries  where  they  would.  We  might  almost  think  of 
the  land  as  entirely  without  inhabitants  were  it  not  for  the  ex- 
press declaration  of  the  presence  of  the  Canaanite  already  cited. 
Two  incidents  only,  seem  to  throw  more  light  on  the  situation. 
The  first  of  these  is  Abraham's  battle  with  the  kings,  narrated 
in  Genesis  14.  Here,  to  our  surprise,  Abraham  appears  as  a  gen- 
eral. He  has  a  body  of  trained  slaves  which  enables  him  to  defeat 
an  army  of  regulars.  The  inconsistency  of  the  picture  with  what 
we  find  elsewhere  is  plain  enough.  Where  was  this  valiant  band 
of  retainers  when  Sarah  was  taken  into  the  harem  of  Pharaoh  ? 
The  doubt  suggested  by  the  discordance  in  the  accounts  is  con- 
firmed by  closer  examination  of  the  narrative  of  victory  itself. 
The  route  of  Chedorlaomer1  is  unintelligible  if  his  objective 
point  was  the  cities  of  the  Plain.  The  mustering  of  four  Mesopo- 
tamian  kings  against  the  five  towns  was  ludicrously  out  of  pro- 
portion. The  victory  of  Abraham,  the  complete  recovery  of  the 
spoil,  and  the  lack  of  any  attempt  on  the  part  of  Chedorlaomer 
to  re-establish  himself,  are  alike  inconceivable.  We  are  com- 
pelled, therefore,  to  leave  this  section  out  of  our  calculation.  Its 
discordance  with  the  general  picture  is  too  pronounced  to  allow 
us  to  regard  it  as  historical.* 

1  Gen.  21  and  26.     The  two  accounts  are  duplicates  of  one  tradition. 

*The  archaic  allusion  to  Rephaim  and  Zuzim  (Gen.  14  *-T),  and  other 
long-perished  nations  seems  to  be  based  on  the  notice  in  Deut.  2.  The 
route  around  the  Dead  Sea,  into  the  desert  and  back,  is  impracticable  for  an 
army. 

*  Desperate  attempts  have  been  made  of  late  years  to  rescue  the  historicity 
•>£  this  chapter,  on  the  ground  of  Babylonian  literature-  All  that  seems  to  h* 


38  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

Before  examining  the  other  case  of  Patriarchal  warfare  we  must 
consider  the  general  question  which  confronts  us  :  In  what  sense 
are  the  names  of  the  Patriarchs  understood  by  the  original  au- 
thors? In  response  to  this  we  must  admit  that  Jacob  or  Israel  is 
in  the  Old  Testament,  for  the  most  part,  the  name  of  a  people 
rather  than  of  an  individual.  In  the  earlier  prophets  the  Patri- 
archs as  individuals  do  not  appear.  When  we  consider  that  the 
stories  of  J  and  E  are  earlier  than  Amos,  this  is  a  remarkable  fact. 
It  seems  to  indicate  that  Amos  and  Hosea,  at  any  rate,  had  little 
idea  of  the  Patriarchs  as  individual  men.1  To  the  Oriental  it  is 
natural  to  speak  of  the  clan  as  an  individual.  Thus  the  Arab 
will  use  indifferently  the  sentences,  The  Banu  Nizar  made  a  foray, 
and  Nizar  made  a  foray.  Hebrew  usage  was  not  different,  as  we 
see  from  such  a  sentence  as,  "  Israel  went  out  to  meet  Philistim 
in  war."2  The  same  fact  is  abundantly  illustrated  in  the  genea- 
logical tables.  The  author  of  Genesis  10  groups  the  nations  of 
his  world  in  families.  The  "sons"  of  Japhet  are  Gomer,  Ma- 
gog, Madai,  Javan,  Tubal,  Meshech,  and  Tiras.  From  other 
references  in  the  Old  Testament  we  have  no  difficulty  in  identify- 
ing these  names  as  the  names  of  nations.  Equally  transparent  is 
the  assertion  that  the  "  sons  "  of  Ham  are  Cush,  Egypt,  Phut,  and 
Canaan.  Almost  more  expressive  is  the  declaration  that  Egypt 
begat  Ludim,  Anamim,  Lehabim,  Naphtuchim,  Pathrusim,  Caslu- 
him,  and  Caphtorim.8  The  names  in  this  sentence  are  in  form 
names  of  tribes,  and  never  were  anything  else.  What  the  author 
has  in  mind  is  that  the  people  of  Egypt  fall  into  groups  which 

established  is  that  the  author  of  our  section  knew  by  tradition  of  early  Elam- 
itic  supremacy  in  Western  Asia.  The  reader  may  compare  Hommel,  Altis- 
raelitischt  Ueberlieferung  (1897),  pp.  147-202,  and  the  article  Chedorlaomer 
in  the  Encyc.  Bib.,  I,  732,  also  Gunkel,  Handkommentar,  Genesis,  p. 
262  fl. 

I  Amos  uses  the   names  Isaac,  Jacob,  and    Israel    always  of  the    people, 
never  of  individuals.      Hosea  in  one  passage  (12  3~1*)  alludes  to  the  history 
of  Jacob  as  an  individual.     Abraham  does  not  appear  in  the  prophetic  litera- 
ture till  the  Exile.     Cf.    Hollmann,  Untersuchungen  tiber  die  Erzv&ter  bei 
den  Propheten  (1897). 

I 1  Sam.  4 !,  where  the  English  disguises  the  fact  that  Philistim  is  a  per- 
sonification  like  Israel. 

*Gen.  lo Uf.  The  Hebrew  adds  out  of  which  (Casluhim,  but  perhaps 
more  properly  to  be  attached  to  Caphtorim)  came  forth  Philistim.  This  is 
doubtless  a  later  insertion,  but  the  point  of  view  of  authors  and  editors  is 
the  same  in  the  matter  we  are  now  considering. 


THE   PATRIARCHS  39 

call  themselves  Ludim,  Anamim,  and  so  on.  It  is  doubtful 
whether  he  supposed  there  ever  was  a  man  called  Egypt  or  that 
he  had  sons  whom  he  named  Ludim  or  Anamim.  The  genea- 
logical scheme  was  a  convenient  way  of  representing  the  facts  of 
geography  and  it  was  nothing  more.  Even  if  the  Biblical  writers 
supposed  that  nations  or  tribes  descended  from  a  single  individ- 
ual, we  are  able  to  say  on  the  basis  of  large  historical  investi- 
gation that  this  is  never  the  case.  The  nation  of  Egypt  had 
existed  for  thousands  of  years  before  the  earliest  Hebrew  writer 
reflected  on  history.  It  is  quite  certain  that  the  nation  could 
not  trace  its  origin  to  a  single  ancestor. 

It  is  doubtful  whether  we  are  on  more  secure  footing  in  the 
other  genealogical  sections.  We  may  take  for  example  the  fam- 
ily of  Esau.1  One  of  his  wives  was  Oholibama,  which  is  quite 
certainly  a  clan.  Among  his  sons  or  grandsons  we  find  Teman, 
Kenaz,  and  Amalek,  which  also  are  names  of  place  or  clan.  When 
we  reflect  on  the  number  of  Edomite  clans  which  must  have  per- 
ished without  leaving  any  record  of  themselves,  we  see  the  strong 
probability  that  if  our  knowledge  were  more  complete  we  should 
be  able  to  identify  all  the  names  in  the  list  as  names  of  clans. 
Esau  would  then  take  his  place  by  the  side  of  Egypt,  as  simply 
the  eponym  of  the  Edomite  people.  We  come  to  the  same 
result  when  we  examine  the  table  of  Ishmael.  In  this  case  we 
know  that  Ishmael  itself  is  a  tribe  name,  as  is  Hagar.  Among 
the  descendants  we  recognise  Nebaioth,  Kedar,  Dumah,  Massa, 
and  Tema  as  place  or  clan  names.  And  when  we  turn  to  the 
list  of  Abraham's  descendants  by  Keturah  we  identify  Midian, 
Sheba,  Dedan,  and  Ephah  without  difficulty.* 

These  examples  enable  us  to  assert  that  the  common  method 
of  our  Hebrew  writers  (for  all  the  documents  are  alike  in  this  re- 
spect) was  to  personify  clans,  tribes,  nations,  or  geographical  divi- 
sions, and  treat  them  as  individuals.  Probably  the  writers  them- 
selves were  in  many  cases  aware  that  the  individuals  of  whom  they 
wrote  were  only  personifications — it  is  impossible  that  a  single 
man  should  bear  the  name  Caphtorim  or  Philistim.  The  author 
who  affirmed  that  Canaan  begat  Sidon  and  Heth  and  the  whole 

"Gen.  36.  The  list  of  "dukes"  of  Edom  is  simply  a.  list  of  clans  in- 
habiting the  country. 

1  Gen.  25  '-••  IWT.  The  identifications  may  be  considerably  increased  in 
number  with  the  help  of  the  inscriptions. 


4O  OLD    TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

list  of  nations  of  that  group,  must  have  known  that  he  was  using 
imagery — as  well  as  a  writer  of  the  present  day  knows  what  he 
means  when  he  speaks  of  Columbia  and  her  daughters. 

The  names  of  the  sons  of  Jacob  are  all  names  of  tribes,  and 
what  is  true  of  the  names  just  considered  must  be  true  of  these 
also.  This  is  made  clear  by  the  oldest  portions  of  our  literature. 
By  common  consent  we  may  consider  under  this  head  the  Song 
of  Deborah  and  the  Testament  of  Jacob.1  In  the  former  we 
find  Reuben  sarcastically  questioned:  "Why  didst  thou  sit 
among  the  ash-heaps,  to  listen  to  the  pipings  at  the  sheepfolds  ? ' ' 
The  Reuben  thus  addressed  is  the  tribe.  In  the  rest  of  the  poem 
Gilead,  Dan,  Asher,  Zebulon,  and  Naphtali  are  likewise  men- 
tioned or  apostrophised  as  individuals.  This  is  of  course  only 
legitimate  poetical  personification,  and  it  might  not  throw  any 
light  on  usage  elsewhere.  But  the  comparison  of  this  poem  with 
the  Testament  of  Jacob  is  instructive,  for  in  the  latter  the  casual 
reader  may  find  individuals  where  tribes  alone  were  in  the  mind 
of  the  writer.  "  Simeon  and  Levi  are  brothers  ;  deceit  and  vio- 
lence are  their  weapons  "  2 — the  verse  would  apply  to  individ- 
ual warriors,  and  in  view  of  the  story  of  Dinah  we  should  naturally 
interpret  it  so.  But  when  we  read  further,  "  I  will  divide  them 
in  Jacob  and  scatter  them  in  Israel,"  we  see  distinctly  that  the 
tribes  must  be  in  the  writer's  mind.  With  this  clue  we  may  go 
through  the  poem,  and  we  discover  that  all  the  personages  are 
personifications.*  Judah  is  the  tribe  that  rejoices  in  conquest 
and  in  the  cultivation  of  the  vine — the  Patriarch  Judah  had  no 
such  character.  Zebulon  lives  on  the  sea-shore;  Issachar  is  a 
tributary,  rendering  forced  labour  to  his  master  ;  Dan  is  a  high- 
way robber  ;  Gad  is  a  rider  on  forays ;  Asher  is  a  cultivator ; 
Joseph  is  a  successful  warrior  and  is  blessed  with  a  fertile  country; 
Benjamin  is  a  warrior  and  plunderer.  The  author  could  scarcely 
have  put  together  a  list  that  differed  more  widely  from  the  char- 
acter of  the  individual  Patriarchs.  But  applied  to  the  tribes, 
everything  is  appropriate. 

1  Judges  5  and  Gen.  49 

"The  verse  (Gen.  49  5)  is  obscure  in  some  of  its  words,  but  the  general 
sense  is  sufficiently  clear. 

*  Reuben  alone  seems  to  be  an  exception,  but  even  in  his  case  there  is 
only  one  sentence  (v.4)  that  requires  an  individualistic  interpretation.  This 
sentence  must  therefore  be  a  poetical  representation  of  some  tribal  episode 
now  lost  to  us. 


THE   PATRIARCHS  41 

What  we  have  seen  in  these  oldest  documents  is  the  constant 
personification  of  the  tribes,  with  the  consciousness  that  tribes 
are  meant.  In  other  passages  of  Genesis  the  same  consciousness 
crops  out.  Thus  Rebekah  is  told:  "Two  nations  are  in  thy 
womb" — not  two  men,  or  two  fathers  of  tribes.  In  Isaac's 
blessing  upon  his  son  Jacob  we  read: 

"  May  nations  serve  thee,  and  peoples  bow  before  thee  ; 
Be  lord  over  thy  brothers,  and  may  thy  mother's  sons  bow  before 
thee." 

It  would  be  pertinent  to  ask  why  brothers  and  mother's  sons  are 
mentioned  in  the  plural  when  Jacob  never  had  but  one  brother. 
Besides,  it  was  never  true  of  Jacob  the  Patriarch  that  nations 
served  him.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  poet's  whole  field 
of  vision  was  occupied  by  the  two  peoples  Edom  and  Israel.  This 
is  strikingly  confirmed  by  the  other  benediction  (if  we  call  it 
so)  in  the  same  story : 

"  Away  from  the  rich  fields  shall  be  thy  dwelling ; 
And  without  the  dew  of  heaven  from  above  ; 
By  thy  sword  thou  shalt  live ;  and  thy  brother  thou  shalt  serve  ; 
But  when  thou  growest  strong,  thou  shalt  break  his  yoke  from  thy 
neck. " ' 

Here  also  the  people  of  Edom  are  really  the  subject — Esau  never 
served  his  brother,  but  the  Edomites  were  subjugated  by  David, 
and  later  threw  off  the  yoke  thus  placed  upon  them.  In  this  in- 
stance we  have  a  clear  case  in  which  the  story  of  the  Patriarchs 
is  a  poetic  reflection  of  the  historical  relations  of  two  peoples. 

Historical  relations  rather  than  historical  incidents  are  reflected 
in  these  stories.  In  a  few  instances  historical  incidents  may  be 
behind  the  story.  The  most  striking  example  is  the  story  of 
Dinah,  already  alluded  to  as  one  of  the  two  warlike  incidents  in 
the  lives  of  the  Patriarchs.  We  must  suppose  that  what  actually 
took  place  was  something  as  follows:  In  the  course  of  the  immi- 
gration of  Israel  the  people  came  into  conflict  with  the  town  of 
Shechem.  One  clan  (Dinah)  was  conquered  by  the  Canaanites 
and  made  tributary.  The  bulk  of  the  people  (Jacob)  thought 

1  Gen.  27  *'•;  cf.  v.w.  The  text  of  *°  is  apparently  corrupt.  I  have  fol- 
lowed  Ball  with  some  misgiving.  The  fact  that  this  last  clause  was  added 
later  (Gunkel)  does  not  interfere  with  the  argument — the  clause  is  quite  in 
the  spirit  of  the  context. 


42  OLD    TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

themselves  not  strong  enough  to  avenge  the  wrong.  But  two 
clans  were  of  a  different  mind.  These  (Simeon  and  Levi) 
formed  a  treacherous  plan  by  which  to  release  their  sister  clan. 
They  therefore  affected  to  be  satisfied  with  the  new  arrangement, 
and  proposed  a  general  alliance  with  rights  of  intermarriage  on 
condition  that  the  Canaanites  adopt  the  rite  of  circumcision. 
This  being  agreed  to,  they  fell  upon  the  unsuspecting  town  when 
the  men  were  disabled  by  the  operation  and  massacred  the  whole 
male  population.1  The  events  are  represented  to  us  in  the  story 
by  the  acts  of  the  individual  sons  and  daughters  of  Jacob. 

Not  many  of  the  Genesis  stories  are  so  clearly  historical  as 
this  one;  and  those  that  are  historical  deal  with  events  of  a  later 
time.  What  interests  us  here  is,  first,  the  fact  that  the  Patriarchs 
cannot  be  taken  as  individuals.  If  individuals  Reuben,  Gad,  and 
Judah  never  existed,  it  is  plain  that  individuals  Jacob,  Isaac,  and 
Abraham  cannot  have  any  more  substantial  reality.  We  have 
to  do  here  with  figures  of  the  poetic  or  legend-building  imagina- 
tion. After  the  clans  began  to  be  treated  as  individuals  the 
story-tellers  busied  themselves  lovingly  with  these  interesting 
figures.  They  became  the  heroes  of  adventure,  and  the  character 
of  the  various  peoples  began  to  be  reflected  in  their  eponyms. 
The  most  striking  is  Jacob.  In  this  cunning  adventurer  we  see 
the  ideals  of  nomad  Israel  admirably  depicted.  When  we  have 
ceased  to  be  uneasy  at  seeing  such  a  character  held  up  as  a  pattern 
saint,  then  we  begin  to  appreciate  the  skill  with  which  he  is 
described. 

A  story  of  this  kind  is  properly  called  a  saga.  Such  sagas  cir- 
culate orally  long  before  there  is  any  written  literature.  They 
are  products  of  the  poetic  imagination.  If  one  of  them  has  a 
historical  incident  as  its  basis,  the  incident  is  transformed.  For 
the  most  part,  however,  the  interest  of  the  narrator  is  not  histor- 
ical but  social.  The  picture  drawn  is  one  of  personal  and  family 
life,  as  we  see  in  the  stories  of  the  Patriarchs.  "  We  hear  a  num- 
ber of  details  which,  whether  we  take  them  for  authentic  or  not, 
are  of  no  value  for  [political]  history:  that  Abraham  was  pious 
and  magnanimous,  that  he  once  sent  away  his  concubine  to  grat- 
ify his  wife,  that  Jacob  deceived  his  brother,  that  Leah  and 
Rachel  were  jealous  of  each  other — unimportant  anecdotes  of 

1  The  composite  nature  of  the  narrative  (Gen.  34)  is  shown  by  Ball  and 
Gunkel.  I  have  followed  what  seems  to  me  the  older  form  of  the  story. 


THE   PATRIARCHS  43 

country  life,  histories  of  wells,  of  watering  troughs,  of  the  inner 
chamber,  delightful  to  read  but  anything  rather  than  historical 
events."  The  author  from  whom  I  am  quoting  adds,  what  is 
evident  on  reflection,  that  whereas  in  genuine  historical  tra- 
dition we  must  find  a  way  in  which  eye-witnesses  of  the  events 
have  communicated  their  observations  to  the  narrator  of  the  his- 
tory, in  the  Patriarchal  sagas  we  have  an  interval  of  four  hundred 
years  (in  any  case)  between  the  events  and  the  narrator.  It  is 
impossible  to  suppose  that  tradition  has  carefully  conserved  the 
smallest  details  of  Patriarchal  family  life  during  all  this  period.1 

At  one  time  there  must  have  existed  a  great  mass  of  this  poet- 
ical material.  It  was  in  the  form  of  detached  stories,  each  a 
unit  in  itself.  When  a  written  literature  began,  the  stories  had 
already  been  grouped  in  a  genealogical  scheme.  This  fact  is 
shown  by  the  plan  common  to  J  and  E,  which  plan  made  it  easy 
to  combine  the  two  documents  in  a  single  narrative.  The  origi- 
nal separateness  of  the  sagas  is  shown  by  the  duplicates  which  we 
find  in  our  documents.  Thus  the  prevarication  concerning  a 
wife  is  related  once  of  Abraham  and  twice  of  Isaac ;  the  conse- 
cration of  Bethel  is  attributed  to  Abraham  and  also  to  Jacob; 
the  name  of  Beersheba  is  given  by  Abraham  and  also  by  Isaac.1 

Two  things  strike  the  attention  in  considering  these  stories. 
The  first  is,  that  they  have  the  nomad  life  as  their  ideal.  No 
doubt  this  is  a  historical  recollection — the  Israelites  were  Beda- 
win  before  their  settlement  in  Canaan.  This  they  confess  by 
making  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  nomads.  The  only  exception 
is  Isaac,  who  is  represented  as  sowing  and  reaping,  and  who  is 
therefore  thought  of  as  beginning  the  agricultural  life.  How 
the  Israelite  conceived  the  ideal  shepherd  is  seen  in  the  case  of 
Jacob.  His  skill  in  caring  for  his  flocks,  his  fidelity  in  watching 
them  by  day  and  by  night,  *  his  shrewdness  in  dealing  with  the 
cunning  and  covetous  Laban,  his  diplomatic  method  of  concili- 
ating the  powerful  chieftain  Esau  after  he  had  twice  overreached 
him — all  these  show  us  the  shepherd  as  (according  to  the  concep- 
tion of  the  times)  he  ought  to  be.  The  frank  worldliness  of  the 

1  Gunkel,  Genesis,  p.  iii.  Gnnkel's  whole  introduction  (now  accessible  in 
English  with  the  title  The  Legends  of  Genesis)  is  instructive  and  valuable. 

*The  prevarication,  Gen.  I210"10,  20,  and  26T-";  Bethel,  Gen.  12* 
»8  »««  and  35  » ;  Beersheba,  Gen.  2 1  "-*1  and  26  «•••». 

•Gen.  31"-". 


44  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

story  in  many  of  its  phases  contrasts  strangely  with  the  religious 
tone  which  runs  through  it.  But  this  is  the  nature  of  early  relig- 
ion— the  God  who  can  give  success  is  the  God  who  commands 
the  faith  of  primitive  man.  We  lose  the  point  of  the  ancient 
story  when  we  read  into  it  our  own  religious  ideas. 

It  follows  that  the  main  interest  of  this  material  is  the  picture 
it  gives  of  the  nomad  life  at  its  best.  Abraham's  faith  and  hospi- 
tality have  been  justly  admired  in  all  ages.  The  contest  of  cunning 
between  Jacob  and  Laban  is  equally  vivid,  if  not  equally  admi- 
rable. The  arrogance  of  the  maid-servant  who  has  been  promoted 
to  her  master's  bed ;  the  jealousy  of  two  wives  in  the  same  house- 
hold, and  the  superstitious  means  they  use  to  get  offspring ;  the 
father's  indulgence  of  the  son  of  his  favourite  and  the  consequent 
hatred  of  the  other  sons — these  are  drawn  to  the  life,  and  show  us 
how  things  go  in  polygamous  society.  Slavery  is  assumed  as  a 
matter  of  course,  and  the  position  which  the  trusted  slave  may 
attain  is  shown  in  the  story  of  the  wooing  of  Rebekah,  as  it  is  in 
the  story  of  Joseph  in  Egypt.  That  the  standard  of  morality 
falls  short  of  that  which  we  hold,  has  already  been  intimated. 
Abraham's  cowardly  denial  of  his  wife  is  rewarded  with  flocks 
and  herds  ;  Jacob's  hard  bargain  with  his  brother  and  his  fraud 
in  the  matter  of  the  blessing  are  nowhere  blamed.  His  dealing 
with  Laban  is  a  case  of  diamond  cut  diamond.  Rachel's  theft 
of  the  Teraphim  is  a  matter  of  amusement  to  the  narrator — the 
household  god  is  not  the  object  of  heartfelt  reverence  when  he 
can  be  thus  literally  sat  upon  by  a  woman.  Tamar's  heroism  in 
securing  by  fraud  the  levirate  rights  which  have  been  withheld 
from  her,  doubtless  appealed  strongly  to  those  who  first  heard 
the  tale,  and  the  more  drastic  measures  of  Lot's  daughters  also 
awakened  something  like  admiration.  The  frankness  of  the  por- 
trayal is  equally  instructive,  whether  the  characters  be  real  or 
imaginary.  The  strong  moral  sense  is  evident,  though  the  mo- 
rality is  not  that  of  our  time. 

The  interest  of  the  authors  is  evidently  centred  in  the  land  of 
Palestine.  A  large  number  of  the  stories  are  intended  to  account 
for  place  names.  One  is  intended  to  account  for  the  physical 
conformation  of  the  country — this  is  the  story  of  the  destruction 
of  Sodom.  The  Dead  Sea  is  a  phenomenon  calculated  to  give 
rise  to  a  saga.  Many  another  lake  is  supposed  to  have  swallowed 
up  villages  or  cities,  whose  towers  the  boatman  thinks  he  sees  be- 


THE   PATRIARCHS  45 

neath  the  waters,  whose  church  bells  he  seems  to  hear  on  a  calm 
evening.  The  cause  of  such  a  catastrophe  can  be  nothing  less 
than  the  wrath  of  the  gods.  In  the  well-known  story  of  Philemon 
and  Baucis  the  wrath  of  the  gods  is  aroused  by  the  inhospitable 
conduct  of  the  people.  The  people  of  Sodom  are  worse  than  in- 
hospitable, and  the  wrath  of  Yahweh  leaves  its  permanent  impress 
upon  the  region,  in  the  uncanny  Sea  with  its  burned  and  barren 
shore.  That  no  marked  change  in  the  natural  features  of  the  re- 
gion has  taken  place  within  historic  times  is  now  generally  con- 
ceded. The  value  of  the  story  to  us  is  its  abhorrence  of  the  un- 
natural vices  of  the  Canaanites — vices  from  which  Israel  itself 
was  not  free.1 

Much  interest  is  shown  by  our  authors  in  the  legends  which 
had  gathered  around  the  various  sanctuaries  of  Canaan.  We 
must  remember  that  the  worship  on  every  high  hill  and  under 
every  green  tree  which  Jeremiah  so  earnestly  denounces,  was  for 
many  centuries  the  established  worship  in  Israel.  Hence  the  re- 
ligious motive  which  led  the  early  writers  to  trace  these  sanctu- 
aries to  Patriarchal  consecration.  Bethel  is  one  of  these  holy 
places.  According  to  one  story  it  was  sacred  because  Abraham 
had  built  an  altar  there.  According  to  another,  Jacob  had  a  rev- 
elation which  showed  him  there  the  ladder  which  was  the  gate  of 
heaven.  A  third  account  makes  him  receive  there  a  direct  prom- 
ise from  Yahweh.*  In  commemoration  of  the  revelation  a 
maffeba  or  sacred  pillar  is  set  up  by  Jacob,  which  he  regards  as 
the  symbol  or  rather  the  residence  of  the  divinity — for  the  stone 
is  called  House-of-God,  We  could  hardly  have  a  more  vivid 
commentary  on  the  declaration  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant : 
"  In  every  place  where  I  bring  my  name  to  remembrance  I  will 
come  to  thee  and  bless  thee."  In  the  consciousness  of  the  people, 
certain  places  were  sacred.  Their  sacred  ness  was  made  known  by 
God's  bringing  Himself  to  mind  in  some  extraordinary  event,  an 
omen  or  a  dream.  Where  the  divine  presence  was  thus  made 
known  an  altar  was  erected  and  a  pillar  set  up.  There  the  people 

1  Compare  Judges  19.  On  similar  sagas,  Cheyne,  in  the  New  World,  1892, 
pp.  236-245;  Usener,  Sintflutsagen,  p.  246  f.;  Andree,  Flutsagen,  p.  49  f. 
On  the  various  elements  which  enter  into  the  Sodom  story,  Gunkel,  Genesis, 
p.  194  f. 

1  The  two  accounts  of  Jacob's  dream  are  now  woven  into  one  (J  E) ;  cf. 
the  commentaries  on  Genesis,  or  Ball's  text — Gen.  28.  Abraham's  altar  is 
mentioned  Gen.  I28. 


40  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

came  with  their  tithes ;  there  they  celebrated  the  yearly  festivals, 
poured  oil  upon  the  sacred  stone,  slept  under  the  supernatural  in- 
fluence, hoping  to  receive  a  revelation  in  a  dream.1 

The  state  of  things  before  the  eyes  of  the  narrator  was  this : 
every  village  had  a  sanctuary  of  this  kind,  every  remarkable 
tree  was  regarded  as  the  seat  of  a  divinity,  many  of  the  fountains 
which  were  a  source  of  blessing  to  the  land  were  likewise  sacred. 
All  this  state  of  things  went  back  to  the  pre-prophetic  stage  of 
religion.  Doubtless  the  sacredness  of  many  of  these  sites  was 
first  attributed  to  them  by  the  Canaanites.  Israel  adopted  the 
sanctuaries  and  consecrated  them  to  Yahweh.  And  a  part  of  the 
adoption  was  effected  by  connecting  them  with  the  Patriarchs. 
Thus  Abraham  built  many  altars  in  his  wanderings.  He  also 
planted  sacred  trees.  For  the  information  that  he  planted  a 
tamarisk  at  Beersheba  and  called  there  upon  the  name  of  Yahweh 
El-Olam  would  be  useless  unless  it  meant  that  the  tree  was  con- 
secrated to  the  divinity.  It  can  scarcely  be  accidental,  therefore, 
that  Abram  has  a  theophany  at  the  Oak  of  the  Oracle,  or  that  his 
altar  is  placed  by  the  Oaks  of  Mamre? 

A  theophany  shows  the  sacredness  of  Penuel,  and  the  name  of 
the  place  {Face-of-God)  is  its  memorial.  Beer-lahai-roi  is  a 
similar  locality,  though  the  etymology  is  obscure.  The  place 
where  Abraham  offered  Isaac  is  another  instance — the  place  was 
evidently  sacred  before  Abraham  was  made  acquainted  with  it. 
A  different  sort  of  sanctuary  is  one  where  an  ancestor  or  ancestors 
are  buried.  Thus  the  Tomb  of  Rachel  is  evidently  sacred,  for  Jacob 
erected  a  maffeba  there.  The  interest  which  originally  attached 
to  the  Cave  of  Machpelah  is  of  the  same  kind.  These  graves  were 
sanctuaries,  and  in  the  early  religion  of  Israel  the  manes  were 
worshipped  at  the  place  of  burial.3  Machpelah  has  continued  to 

1  Jacob  is  the  inaugurates  of  this  method  of  inquiring  the  divine  will. 
For  parallels  in  other  religions  see  Deubner,  De  Incubatione  (1900).  On 
sacred  stones  or  pillars  in  other  religions,  see  the  article  Baitulos  in  Roscher, 
Lexicon  der  Grieekischen  und  Romischen  Mythologic,  I,  p.  746. 

1  Gen.  I26,  13  18,  21  M.  On  the  sanctity  of  fountains,  trees,  and  hills 
among  the  Semitic  peoples,  cf.  Baudissin's  essay  in  his  Studien  tur  Semit- 
ischen  Rtligionsgeschichte,  II,  pp.  143-268;  and  Curtiss's  chapter  on  the 
High-places  in  his  Primitive  Semitic  Religion  (1902). 

*  It  would  seem  that  a  maffeba  was  also  placed  upon  the  grave  of  Deb- 
orah :  Gen  35  8,  continued  in  v.  u.  A  survival  of  the  worship  of  the  manes 
it  the  reverence  paid  at  the  tombs  of  "  saints"  all  through  the  East  at  the 


THE   PATRIARCHS  47 

be  a  sanctuary,  as  we  know,  down  to  the  present  time.  Prob- 
ably this,  like  the  other  sacred  places,  was  originally  consecrated 
to  a  Canaanitish  god.  Whether  Abraham  was  originally  such  a 
god,  may  be  doubted.1  The  reason  why  P  lays  such  emphasis 
upon  Machpelah  is  doubtless  that  he  wished  to  contradict  the 
Edomite  claim  to  Hebron,  which  became  offensive  in  the  post- 
exilic  period. 

The  writers  we  are  considering  were  also  especially  interested 
in  the  possession  of  Canaan  by  Israel.  They  could  account  for 
the  success  of  their  ancestors  in  securing  so  goodly  a  land  only  by 
supposing  an  act  of  grace  on  the  part  of  God.  Hence  we  find 
frequent  emphasis  of  God's  promises  to  the  Patriarchs,  His  cov- 
enant with  them,  and  His  protecting  care.  He  causes  a  terror  to 
fall  upon  the  Canaanites  so  that  they  do  not  pursue  Jacob  after 
the  massacre  at  Shechem.  He  warns  Abimelech  against  trespass- 
ing upon  Abraham's  marital  rights.  He  forbids  Laban  to  do 
Jacob  any  harm.*  This  protecting  care  is  recorded  in  the  names 
of  some  of  the  characters — Ishmael  is  so  called  because  his  prayer 
(or  that  of  his  mother)  is  heard.  The  birth  of  Ishmael,  Isaac, 
Esau,  Jacob  is  due  to  especial  divine  favour,  because  the  wives  of 
the  Patriarchs  were  barren.  Most  impressive  of  all  is  the  nearness 
of  Yahweh  to  His  clients.  He  comes  to  them  frequently  in 
dreams  or  theophanies.  He  makes  and  repeats  promises  of  pro- 
tection and  prosperity.  He  enters  into  solemn  covenant  with 
Abraham,  condescending  to  the  methods  by  which  human  con- 
tracts are  ratified,  and  the  promise  is  repeated  to  Isaac  and 
Jacob.  For  Abraham's  sake  Lot  is  rescued  in  the  destruction 
of  Sodom.  Even  the  prevarication  in  the  matter  of  Sarah  is 
made  an  occasion  for  blessing  the  Patriarch — the  sincerity  of 
the  author's  religion  does  not,  of  course,  excuse  his  defective 
moral  sense. 

Historically  it  was  a  puzzle  that  Lot,  the  nephew  of  Abraham, 
should  be  separated  from  Israel  by  the  Dead  Sea.  The  saga  of 

present  day.  A  considerable  literature  might  be  cited  on  the  subject  of  ani- 
mism in  the  religion  of  Israel.  The  most  recent  monographs  to  date  are 
Frey,  Tod,  Seelenglaube  und  Seelenkult  im  alien  Israel  (1898) ;  and  Grun- 
eisen,  Der  Ahnenkultus  und  die  Urreligion  Israels  (1900). 

1  As  we  are  here  considering  only  the  Patriarchal  stories,  a  complete  enu- 
meration of  the  early  sanctuaries  is  not  attempted.  A  copious  list  is  giren 
by  Freiherr  von  Gall,  Altisraelititeke  Kultstdtten  (1898). 

*G«n.  ao»-T,  31",  35  ». 


48  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

the  destruction  of  Sodom  is  made  to  account  for  the  situation. 
Esau  was  the  older  brother  of  Jacob — why  should  he  have  the  less 
desirable  country?  The  saga  accused  him  of  selling  his  birth- 
right, or  told  how  Jacob  was  shrewd  enough  to  cheat  him  of  the 
blessing.  The  dismissal  of  Ishmael  and  of  the  sons  of  Keturah 
to  the  Arabian  wilderness  confirms  Jacob's  title  to  the  country. 
Jacob's  covenant  with  Laban  seems  to  embody  the  idea  that 
Israelites  and  Arameans  should  respect  the  boundary  cairn  in 
Gilead  and  live  in  peace  with  each  other.  Isaac's  treaty  with  the 
Philistines  secures  the  title  to  some  wells  in  the  South  Country. 
Abraham's  purchase  of  Machpelah  and  Jacob's  purchase  of  land 
at  Shechem  are  designed  to  authenticate  the  title  of  their  descen- 
dants. 

Care  for  purity  of  blood  was  early  reinforced  by  religious  mo- 
tives. From  this  point  of  view  we  understand  Abraham's  anxiety 
to  secure  one  of  his  kinswomen  as  a  wife  for  Isaac.  The  same 
motive  sends  Jacob  to  Laban.  It  seems  a  little  curious  that  Ta- 
mar  the  Canaanitess  should  be  made  so  prominent — we  can  ac- 
count for  the  prominence  only  by  supposing  that  her  loyalty  to 
duty  made  her  worthy  to  rank  with  the  best  of  Israel's  mothers. 
A  reaction  against  Canaanitish  religion  is  perhaps  seen  in  the 
story  of  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac,  for  the  lesson  of  the  story  in  its 
present  form  is  that  Yahweh  does  not  require  sacrifice  of  the 
first-born,  but  accepts  an  animal  instead. 

What  has  been  said  is  enough  to  show  that  we  have  no  really 
historical  knowledge  of  a  patriarchal  period  preceding  Israel's 
conquest  of  Canaan.  The  individuals,  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Ja- 
cob, are  eponyms — personifications  of  clans,  tribes,  or  ethnologi- 
cal groups — and  they  are  nothing  more.  But,  as  the  religious 
mind  is  reluctant  to  give  up  the  flesh  and  blood  reality  of  these 
figures,  it  may  repay  us  to  review  the  evidence  once  more.  The 
following  positions  seem  to  be  established : 

The  earliest  literature  we  have  is  conscious  that  the  sons  of 
Israel  of  which  it  speaks  (Reuben,  Judah,  and  the  others)  are 
only  personifications  of  the  tribes  which  inhabit  Canaan.  But  if 
these  are  personifications,  then  a  fortiori  Israel  himself  is  a  per- 
sonification, and  the  more  remote  ancestors  can  have  no  more 
substantial  existence  than  the  nearer  one. 

The  state  of  the  country,  indicated  by  the  patriarchal  stories,  is 
contrary  to  fact.  The  only  immigration  possible  in  the  Amarna 


THE  PATRIARCHS  49 

period,  was  a  warlike  invasion,  such  as  actually  took  place  at 
the  conquest — not  a  peaceable  sojourn  like  that  of  Abraham. 

The  nature  of  the  information  given  by  the  stories  is  such  that 
we  cannot  suppose  it  handed  down  by  any  valid  historical  proc- 
ess— family  gossip  known  only  to  the  immediate  members  of  the 
family  does  not  pass  accurately  from  one  generation  to  another 
for  six  hundred  years  or  more. 

The  stories  we  are  considering  are  parallel  to  folk-stories  which 
are  preserved  to  us  in  other  regions — aetiological  legends,  sagas, 
poetic  transformations  of  historical  events.  The  religious  imagi- 
nation especially  delights  in  such  compositions. 

Arab  usage  is  in  line  with  what  we  are  here  assuming  for 
Israel.  The  clan  is  spoken  of  as  an  individual,  its  members  are 
his  sons,  related  clans  are  his  brothers  or  sisters,  the  alliance  of 
two  clans  is  presented  as  a  marriage,  the  larger  group  of  which 
the  clan  is  a  part  is  called  the  father  or  grandfather  (sometimes 
the  mother  or  grandmother)  of  the  clans  of  which  it  is  made  up. 
On  the  ground  of  this  analogy  we  should  be  justified  in  making 
the  wives  of  the  Patriarchs  into  clans  or  groups  of  clans.  So  the 
sons  of  Rachel  are  the  two  tribes  Joseph  and  Benjamin  ;  Rachel 
herself  is  simply  the  earlier  tribe  which  divided  into  two  ;  Joseph, 
as  we  know,  afterward  subdivided  into  Ephraim  and  Manasseh. 

Biblical  usage  is  quite  clear  in  regard  to  the  name  Israel,  which 
in  an  overwhelming  number  of  cases  is  used  as  the  name  of  the 
nation.  Jacob  is  the  synonym  of  Israel,  and  in  the  earlier  litera- 
ture occurs  in  the  poetic  passages  almost  exclusively. 

This  brings  us  to  a  significant  fact;  the  importance  of  the 
Patriarchs  as  individual  figures  dates  from  the  post-exilic,  or  at 
least  post-Deuteronomic,  period.  We  can  see  that  it  was  natural 
for  the  people,  in  times  of  reversal,  and  when  their  hold  on  their 
homeland  was  precarious,  to  emphasize  the  promises  made  to  the 
forefathers.  The  significance  of  these  men  increases,  therefore, 
in  the  post-exilic  period,  and  down  to  the  New  Testament  times. 
A  striking  fact  is,  that  none  of  the  prophets  allude  to  Abraham 
until  we  come  to  Ezekiel.1  The  weight  of  this  in  an  inquiry 
into  the  historicity  of  the  Patriarchs  can  hardly  be  overestimated. 

The  fact  is,  that  a  single  sentence  in  the  account  of  Abraham 
appealed  to  the  Apostle  Paul,  and  the  Patriarch  thus  became  an 

1  The  present  text  shows  two  passages,  Mic.  710  and  Jer.  33",  but  both  u* 
in  confessedly  late  additions  to  the  prophetic  text. 


$O  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

important  figure  in  Christian  theology.  Recent  authors  who  at- 
tempt to  rescue  the  historicity  of  the  Father  of  the  Faithful  are 
obliged  to  make  so  many  modifications  in  their  account  of  him, 
that  they  deprive  us  of  his  religious  value.1 

Our  conclusion  is  that  there  is  no  sufficient  warrant  for  sup- 
posing individuals  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  to  have  been  the 
ancestors  of  the  people.  That  Jacob  or  Israel  was  the  name  of  a 
clan  (or  that  they  were  the  names  of  two  separate  clans)  seems  to 
be  made  out.  Isaac  and  Abraham  are  as  yet  unaccounted  for 
— that  is,  we  know  of  no  tribes  or  clans  that  bore  these  names. 
Probably  both  were  creations  of  the  legend-building  imagination 
working  under  the  necessities  of  the  patriarchal  theory.  Isaac 
represents  the  unity  of  Israel  and  Edom ;  Abraham  represents  a 
larger  unity — the  early  Israelites  were  conscious  of  their  relation- 
ship with  Moab,  Ammon,  Ishmael,  Midian,  Edom,  and  other  tribes 
of  the  region.  This  implies  that  all  these  peoples  had  a  common 

1  Cornill,  in  his  recently  published  sketch  of  the  history  of  Israel,  assumes 
that  the  Semitic  migration  from  Mesopotamia  about  1500  B.C.  was  headed  by 
a  chieftain  named  Abraham.  This  author  seems  to  be  conscious  that  it  is 
illogical  to  assert  the  historicity  of  Abraham  while  sacrificing  that  of  Isaac 
and  Jacob  (Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  p.  30).  In  fact,  the  Abraham  of  such 
a  hypothesis  is  not  the  Abraham  of  our  Bibles,  and  to  recover  the  name  of  a 
single  chieftain  in  the  great  migration  must  be  confessed  to  be  a  matter  of 
minor  importance.  Paton  supposes  Abram  and  Abraham  to  have  been  two 
distinct  individuals  (Early  History  of  Syria  and  Palestine,  p.  41  f.). 
Abram  he  supposes  to  have  been  a  chieftain  of  the  Amorites  who  migrated 
to  Palestine  about  2250  B.C.  Ryle  (in  Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible, 
s.  v.)  also  regards  Abraham  as  leader  of  a  great  nomadic  movement,  but 
regards  his  story  as  mainly  a  picture  of  the  relationship  of  Arab  tribes  and 
clans  to  the  Hebrew  stock.  Kent  (History  of  the  Hebrew  People,  I,  p.  n) 
speaks  only  of  the  traditions  of  the  Patriarchs  as  patron  saints.  Other  recent 
historians  prefer  to  pass  very  lightly  over  the  stories  of  the  Patriarchs,  and  to 
begin  their  narratives  with  the  sojourn  in  Egypt,  for  example  Budde,  Reli- 
gion of  Israel ;  Ottley,  Short  History  of  the  Hebrews.  I  have  cited  what  may 
fairly  be  called  conservative  scholars,  so  that  the  reader  may  have  a  fair 
view  of  the  consensus  of  opinion.  Wade  (Old  Testament  History)  finds  it 
difficult  to  regard  the  patriarchal  records,  taken  as  a  whole,  as  completely 
trustworthy,  but  believes  many  of  the  figures  in  them  to  be  real  characters. 
On  the  other  hand,  Winckler  (Geschichte  Israels,  II,  pp.  23  f.,  28)  finds  in 
Abraham  the  moon-god,  or  Tammuz  (Adonis)  the  son  of  the  moon-god,  and 
finds  this  theory  confirmed  by  Gen.  14,  which  he  thinks  a  Babylonian  myth. 
Renan,  History  of  the  People  of  Israel,  I,  p.  63)  represents  an  older  stage  of 
speculation  when  he  identifies  Abraham  with  the  pater  Orchamus  (Ab-Or« 
cham)  of  early  mythology,  whose  name  is  preserved  to  us  by  Ovid, 


THE   PATRIARCHS  5 1 

ancestor.  A  natural  name  for  such  an  ancestor  would  be  Father- 
0f-a-crowd-of-nations,  which  the  Hebrew  author  thinks  to  be  the 
meaning  of  the  name  Abraham.  The  precarious  nature  of  Bibli- 
cal etymologies  is  admitted  on  all  hands.  But  until  a  more 
probable  derivation  for  the  name  Abraham  is  put  forward,  we  may 
accept  this  one.  In  this  case  Abraham  is  a  genealogical  con- 
struction originating  in  the  necessities  of  the  early  theory  of  his- 
tory. It  is  possible  that  the  other  name  of  the  Patriarch,  Abram, 
which  means  Exalted- Father,  is  a  similar  invention  intended  to 
mean  Great  Ancestor. 

It  is  not  strictly  correct  to  say  that  the  sagas  give  us  no  his- 
torical results.  What  they  reveal  to  us  is  this :  the  group  of 
peoples  of  which  Israel  was  one  were  immigrants  from  the  East ; 
they  were  nomads  till  they  settled  in  Palestine;  they  amalga- 
mated more  or  less  thoroughly  with  the  Canaanites.  If  these 
results  seem  meagre  we  must  remember  that  literature  has  other 
than  a  directly  historical  value.  Abraham  as  a  type  of  the  be- 
liever in  God  reveals  the  religious  faith  of  the  author  who  drew 
his  picture.  The  manners,  morals,  and  religion  of  the  Patriarchs 
really  existed  in  the  Israel  of  a  later  period.  The  authors  who 
could  charm  us  with  the  story  of  Joseph  have  established  their 
kinship  with  universal  human  nature. 


CHAPTER  IV 

EGYPT    AND    THE    DESERT 

As  every  reader  of  the  Bible  knows,  the  received  history  of 
Israel  makes  Jacob  and  his  family  go  down  to  Egypt  to  the  num- 
ber of  seventy  souls.  Here  they  are  nourished  during  the  famine 
and  establish  themselves  in  the  land.  During  the  years  of  Jo- 
seph's life  they  prosper  and  increase.  Change  of  dynasty  (so  we 
may  interpret)  puts  them  into  the  power  of  a  king  who  has  no 
feelings  of  gratitude  toward  Joseph,  and  who  fears  the  power  of 
the  growing  people.  His  fear  that  they  may  make  an  alliance 
with  future  invaders  (from  Syria,  of  course)  makes  him  take  ex- 
traordinary measures  to  check  their  growth.  He  reduces  them  to 
forced  labour,  putting  them  at  the  hard  work  of  making  bricks. 
This  measure  proves  unavailing,  and  he  is  driven  to  more  drastic 
expedients,  nothing  less  than  the  slaying  of  all  male  infants  as 
soon  as  born  or  in  the  act  of  birth.  During  the  time  when  this 
cruel  decree  is  in  force  Moses  is  born.  After  exposure  by  his 
mother  he  is  discovered  and  adopted  by  Pharaoh's  daughter. 
When  grown  to  manhood  his  too  lively  sympathy  with  his 
oppressed  brethren  brings  him  into  danger  and  results  in  his 
flight  to  Midian.  Here,  after  some  time,  he  is  commissioned  to 
deliver  his  people.  His  demand  for  their  liberation  is  repeatedly 
refused,  but  the  refusal  is  in  each  case  followed  by  a  signal  mani- 
festation of  the  divine  wrath.  The  culmination  is  the  death  of 
the  first-born  in  every  Egyptian  family,  under  the  impression  of 
which  the  people  are  thrust  out.  But  the  quick  change  of  mind 
on  the  part  of  the  king  threatens  to  undo  what  has  been  done, 
especially  as  the  fugitives  get  "entangled  in  the  land."  The 
new  perplexity  is  solved,  however,  by  a  new  deliverance,  and  an 
added  stroke  is  inflicted  upon  the  oppressor. 

The  crossing  of  the  Red  Sea  opens  the  era  of  the  desert  wan- 
derings. The  immediate  dearth  of  food  is  met  by  a  miraculous 
supply  ;  the  equally  trying  lack  of  water  is  overcome  by  a  similar 
act  of  God.  The  Bedawin  dispute  the  way,  but  are  successfully 

52 


EGYPT  AND   THE  DESERT  53 

overcome.  At  the  Mount  of  God  a  covenant  is  ratified  amid 
convulsions  of  nature.  The  Book  of  the  Covenant  is  adopted, 
only  to  be  immediately  forgotten  by  the  people.  The  command 
for  the  erection  of  the  Tabernacle  is  given  with  great  particular- 
ity, but  is  interrupted  by  the  trying  incident  of  the  golden 
calf.  A  new  decalogue,  different  from  the  one  given  forty  days 
or  eighty  days  earlier,  is  engraved  on  tables  of  stone.  After 
vengeance  is  taken  for  the  crime  of  idolatry  an  elaborate  ritual 
law  is  given  to  Moses.  The  people  then  journey  to  Kadesh,  on 
the  southern  border  of  Palestine,  where  they  sojourn  for  a  long 
time. 

The  narrative  thus  summarised  is  in  many  places  confused  and 
over-full.  Its  numerical  data  are  exaggerated  and  impossible. 
Its  contradictions  and  inconsistencies  have  often  been  pointed  out. 
The  careful  reader  will  discover  that  in  the  narrative  as  it 
stands,  Moses  goes  up  to  the  mountain  as  many  as  seven  times. 
He  will  discover  also  frequent  duplicates,  such  as  the  revelation 
of  the  divine  Name,  Ex.  3  *""  and  6  *~9.  In  some  cases  a  section 
is  injected  into  the  narrative  in  such  a  way  as  to  break  asunder 
what  was  once  continuous ;  so  the  little  paragraph  of  the  circum- 
cision, 4  **"**,  and  the  genealogy  which  ends  ' '  this  is  that  Moses 
and  Aaron,"  6  ".  As  in  the  earlier  narratives  that  we  have  exam- 
ined, these  phenomena  indicate  composite  origin.  Rightly  to 
estimate  the  material  we  must  endeavour  to  separate  the  docu- 
ments. In  this  endeavour  we  shall  discover  that  the  most  glaring 
improbabilities  are  the  property  of  the  priestly  writer — his  disre- 
gard of  limitations  of  space  and  time  are  evident  in  this  as  in 
other  parts  of  his  work.  It  is  his  love  of  symmetry  which  divides 
Moses's  life  into  three  equal  periods  of  forty  years  each.  He  it 
is  who  dates  the  exodus  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  to  a 
day  from  the  immigration  of  Jacob  and  his  sons.  He  it  is,  also, 
who  not  only  gives  the  number  of  six  hundred  thousand  adult 
males  for  Israel,  but  confirms  these  figures  by  an  elaborate  census 
of  the  twelve  tribes.1 

1  The  numerical  impossibilities  of  the  narrative  are  set  forth  by  Colenso 
in  the  first  volume  of  his  Pentateuch  and  Book  of  Joshua  Critically  Exam' 
ined,  London,  1862.  On  the  method  of  desert  travelling  notice  Doughty, 
Arabia  Desfrta,  I,  pp.  7  and  61.  Professor  George  F.  Moore  has  called  my 
Attention  to  Ibn  Chaldun's  criticism  of  the  figures  given  by  Masudi  in  his 
history  of  the  exodus,  which  were  borrowed,  of  course,  from  Jewish  source*. 


54  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

This  late  document  being  laid  aside,  we  may  suppose  that  the 
other  authors  thought  of  the  people  who  left  Egypt  as  being  com- 
paratively a  small  number.1  There  is,  of  course,  no  historical 
improbability  in  a  nomad  clan's  taking  refuge  in  Egypt,  espe- 
cially in  the  land  of  Goshen,  which  bordered  on  the  desert  and  was 
suitable  for  pastoral  life.  The  Bedawin  have  always  looked  with 
longing  eyes  (as  all  history  shows)  at  the  rich  pastures  of  Egypt. 
The  tradition  of  Abraham's  going  there  to  sojourn,  the  Ishmael- 
ite  or  Midianite  caravans  that  traded  thither,  show  how  acces- 
sible the  country  was.  To  guard  against  too  frequent  or  too 
violent  incursions  of  this  kind,  the  Egyptian  monarchs  early  for- 
tified the  isthmus  of  Suez.  To  pass  the  fortifications  required 
the  permission  of  the  authorities;  with  good  reason,  therefore,  the 
story  makes  Joseph  ask  leave  of  the  Pharaoh  for  the  settlement 
of  his  brothers.  In  the  Egyptian  monuments  we  have  record  of 
an  Edomite  tribe  asking  and  receiving  permission  to  pass  the 
fortifications  in  order  to  pasture  their  cattle  on  the  land  of  Pha- 
raoh.* In  fact  it  was  the  most  natural  thing  in  the  world  for 
the  nomads  to  be  attracted  to  Egypt,  especially  from  Beersheba 
and  the  South  Country. 

But  the  Egyptologists  as  yet  have  discovered  on  the  monu- 
ments no  evidence  of  a  Joseph  or  an  Israel  in  Egypt,  as  they 
have  discovered  none  of  the  oppression  or  the  exodus.  We  are 
therefore  obliged  to  look  narrowly  at  the  evidence  of  the  Hebrew 
sources.  Here  we  might  plead  the  tradition  of  Abraham's  visit  just 
alluded  to,  of  Isaac's  sojourn  in  the  land  of  the  Philistines  (which 
may  have  been  tributary  to  Egypt),  of  Joseph's  being  sold  to  an 
Egyptian  courtier,  and  finally  in  all  three  documents  the  extended 
account  of  the  sojourn  and  deliverance.  We  may  acknowledge 

Cf.  Ibn  Chaldun's  Prolegomena  (131 1),  p.  6  f.  The  analysis  of  the  Hexateuch 
is  attempted  in  works  already  cited,  to  which  may  be  added  Bacon's  Triple 
Tradition  of  the  Exodus,  Hartford,  1894. 

1  Some  critics  do  indeed  attribute  to  J  the  statement  (Ex.  12  JT)  that  "Is- 
rael  journeyed  from  Rameses  to  Succoth,  about  six  hundred  thousand  foot- 
men, besides  children."  But  the  verse  is  suspicious.  Baentsch  ascribes  it 
to  P  (Exodus,  p.  104),  while  Holzinger  (Exodus,  p.  35)  and  Addis  think  the 
original  number  has  been  enlarged  ;  so  apparently  Carpenter  and  Battersby, 
Hexateuch,  II,  p.  98. 

1  W.  M.  Miiller,  Asien  und  Europa  nach  Altagyptischen  Denkmdlern 
('893)1  P-  T35-  The  Bedawin  are  here  called  clans  of  Edom.  A  reference 
to  the  Seirites  is  given  in  the  same  connexion. 


EGYPT  AND  THE  DESERT  55 

the  historic  probability,  also,  that  a  tribe  once  within  the  power 
of  the  Pharaoh  should  be  forced  on  to  the  public  works,  and  should 
make  a  successful  revolt.  On  the  other  hand,  we  must  not  seek 
confirmation  for  the  Biblical  story  at  the  hand  of  Manetho.1  His 
account  is  to  the  effect  that  at  one  time  Egypt  was  invaded  by 
foreigners  who  established  themselves  in  a  city  called  Avaris,  and 
kept  the  power  five  hundred  years.  After  this  time  they  were 
expelled,  and  to  the  number  of  two  hundred  and  forty  thousand 
journeyed  through  the  wilderness  from  Egypt  to  Syria.  Here 
from  fear  of  the  Assyrians  they  built  a  city  large  enough  to  con- 
tain so  many  myriads  of  men  and  called  it  Jerusalem.  These 
foreigners  he  calls  Hyksos.*  What  foreign  dynasties  ruled  in 
Egypt  does  not  concern  us  here.  All  we  need  to  notice  is 
that  Manetho,  writing  in  the  Greek  period,  was  influenced  by 
current  tradition  derived  from  the  Jews,  when  he  made  the  ex- 
pelled Hyksos  go  to  Palestine  and  build  Jerusalem.  Another 
story  cited  from  Manetho  identifies  the  Israelites  with  the  lepers 
and  unclean  whom  an  Egyptian  king  set  to  work  in  the  quar- 
ries. These  unfortunates  were  led  to  revolt  by  one  Osarsiph,  a 
priest  who  was  among  them.  Their  temporary  triumph  was 
due  to  an  alliance  with  the  Hyksos  of  Jerusalem,  and  their 
final  expulsion  brought  them  to  that  city.  It  must  be  evident 
that  no  use  can  be  made  of  this  legend  in  a  history  of  Israel. 
The  story  seems  to  be  a  pure  invention,  prompted  by  Egyptian 
hatred  for  the  Jews. 

As  external  sources  fail  us  we  turn  again  to  the  Biblical  narra- 
tive. The  unhistorical  scheme  of  the  priestly  writer  being  left 
aside,  we  examine  the  story  of  J  and  E.  Beyond  the  statement 
that  the  small  clan  of  Jacob  went  to  Egypt  and  remained  there 
three  generations,  that  they  were  forced  to  labour  on  the  public 
works,  and  that  they  succeeded  in  regaining  the  wilderness  under 
the  leadership  of  Moses,  we  find  little  that  commands  our  confi- 
dence. That  the  Egyptian  authorities  should  want  to  keep  them 
in  the  land  is  probable  enough.  That  the  oppression  was  mo- 

1  See  Josephus,  Against  Apion,  I,  14,  15,  26-31.  The  credibility  of 
Manetho  is  discussed  at  length  by  Hengstenberg,  Die  Bucher  Mast's  und 
Egypten  (1841),  pp.  236-277.  The  latest  treatment  of  the  story  is  by  Willrich, 
Juden  und  Gritchen  vor  der  Makkabaischen  Erhebung  (1895),  pp.  53-56. 

1  Bedawin  kings  or  shepherd  kings  is  Manetho's  translation,  which  seems 
to  be  correct ;  cf.  Muller,  Asien  und  Eurofa,  p.  132. 


56  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

lived  by  fear  is  hardly  likely — fear  would  have  led  to  their  expul- 
sion beyond  the  fortifications.1 

As  we  have  had  occasion  to  notice,  the  tradition  behind  the 
two  documents  we  are  considering  is  one.  The  two  writers 
follow  substantially  the  same  order  of  events.  But  differences 
of  detail  show  how  far  the  tradition  was  from  being  fixed. 
For  example,  one  document  makes  the  people  of  Israel  settled 
by  themselves  in  the  district  of  Goshen.  The  other  thinks  of 
them  as  living  in  the  cities  (or  a  city)  in  close  contact  with 
their  Egyptian  neighbours,  from  whom  they  can  borrow  jewels 
at  short  notice.  One  knows  of  Moses's  exposure,  rescue,  and 
adoption  in  the  family  of  Pharaoh.*  The  other  seems  to  have  in- 
troduced him  abruptly  into  the  narrative  when  already  a  man. 
Both,  however,  know  of  his  flight  into  Midian,  and  account  for 
it  by  an  abortive  attempt  to  help  his  brethren.*  Both  make  him 
receive  a  revelation  of  Yahweh  in  the  desert,  though  one  sup- 
poses that  the  name  Yahweh  had  been  before  unknown,  while  the 
other  thinks  of  it  as  known  from  antediluvian  times.*  One  of 
the  sources  gives  Aaron  to  Moses  as  his  helper ;  the  other  seems 
not  to  have  known  him.  One  makes  Moses  receive  a  magic 
wand  from  Yahweh  Himself  at  the  Bush,  and  by  means  of  this 
he  works  the  miracles.  The  other  narrates  that  the  miracles 
are  announced  by  Moses,  but  wrought  by  the  direct  act  of 
God. 

It  is  altogether  probable  that  the  sources  are  right  in  dating  a 
religious  epoch  from  the  exodus.  The  religious  motive  is  so  in- 
terwoven with  the  life  of  Israel  that  each  popular  movement  was 
a  religious  movement.  The  enthusiasm  of  a  prophet  alone  seems 
able  to  nerve  an  oriental  people  to  a  great  effort.  This  is  well  illus- 
trated in  the  co-operation  of  Moses  and  Aaron  :  Moses  is  told  that 
he  shall  be  a  god  to  Aaron  and  that  Aaron  will  be  his  prophet. 

1  That  part  of  the  isthmus  of  Suez  which  was  not  rendered  impassable  by 
marshes  or  lakes  was  defended  by  a  wall  and  garrison,  as  already  noted. 

1 A  curious  parallel  to  the  exposure  of  Moses  in  a  basket  is  found  in  the 
annals  of  Sargon  I.  Cf.  McCurdy,  History,  Prophecy,  and  the  Monuments, 
I,  p.  99,  and  Keilinschr.  Bibliothek,  III,  pp.  101-103. 

*  So  we  must  suppose,  though  the  attempt  as  related  by  J  has  been  lost  in 
the  process  of  combining  the  documents. 

4  According  to  J  (Gen.  4  M)  the  name  Yahweh  was  known  to  Enosh,  the 
grandson  of  Adam.  The  theory  of  E  that  it  was  revealed  first  to  Moses  is 
quite  clear  from  Ex.  3  u. 


EGYPT  AND  THE  DESERT  57 

The  commanding  position  of  the  recipient  of  a  divine  revelation  it 
nowhere  more  strikingly  set  forth.  How  Moses  came  into  this 
position  we  can  no  longer  certainly  make  out.  That  in  his  des- 
ert wandering  he  heard  a  divine  voice,  and  had  a  theophany  of 
flame,  is  not  without  parallel.1  Elijah  also  had  a  revelation  at 
Mount  Horeb,  and  John  the  Baptist  received  his  call  in  a  wil- 
derness sojourn.  In  what  connexion  the  new  name  of  Yahweh 
stands  with  the  Midianites,  among  whom  Moses  sojourns,  is  not 
clear.  The  most  obvious  hypothesis  is  that  Yahweh  was  the  an- 
cestral God  of  Midian,  with  whom  Moses  became  acquainted, 
faith  in  whom  led  to  the  endeavour  to  deliver  Israel.  The  name 
Yahweh  gives  no  light  on  the  problem.* 

A  distinct  section  of  the  narrative  is  concerned  with  the 
plagues  sent  upon  Egypt  by  Yahweh.  In  the  current  text  these 
are  ten  in  number,  but  the  analysis  shows  that  no  single  source 
had  so  many.  All  of  them  (except  the  death  of  the  first-born) 
are  such  visitations  as  the  land  of  Egypt  is  subject  to  from  its  situ- 
ation and  climate.*  Their  object  is  variously  given  by  the  dif- 
ferent writers.  One  assumes  that  they  are  to  punish  Pharaoh's 
refusal  to  let  the  people  go  ;  another  makes  them  demonstrations 
of  the  power  of  Yahweh  ;  the  third  presents  them  as  stages  in  the 
contest  between  Yahweh  and  the  gods  of  Egypt.  The  earliest 
document  (J)  makes  the  plagues  seven  in  number  :  an  epidemic 
among  the  fish  of  the  Nile,  an  enormous  number  of  frogs,  swarms 
of  flies,  a  murrain  among  cattle,  a  violent  hail,  an  invasion  of  lo- 
custs, and  the  death  of  the  first-born.  The  narrative  of  E  duplicates 
the  hail,  the  locusts,  and  the  death  of  the  first-born,  and  adds  the 
turning  of  the  Nile  into  blood  and  the  darkness,  both  which 
seem  to  have  a  basis  in  the  natural  phenomena  of  the  country. 

1  One  is  reminded  of  the  sidra  tree  of  Mohammed — Koran  53  u. 

*  The  etymology  of  Ex.  3  u  expresses  only  the  view  of  the  writer,  and  can 
hardly  put  us  into  possession  of  the  real  meaning  of  a  name  so  ancient.  Be- 
sides this,  the  author's  language  is  obscure,  so  that  we  do  not  know  whether 
he  meant  to  predicate  of  Yahweh  self-existence  (uncaused),  self-determina- 
tion, sovereignty,  or  unsearchableness.  Conjectures  are  recorded  in  many 
commentaries  and  Biblical  theologies,  the  latest  to  date  by  Holzinger  (Ex- 
odus, p.  131.)  and  Baentsch  (Exodus,  p.  23). 

•This  is  well  brought  out  by  an  article,  "  Die  Plagen  Egyptens,"  in  the 
Christliche  Welt,  X  (1896),  No  45.  The  author  shows  also,  that  the  se- 
quence of  the  plagues  is  that  in  which  the  natural  phenomena  come  in  UM 
Egyptian  seasons. 


58  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

The  red  colour  of  the  Nile  at  the  opening  of  the  inundation  is 
one  of  the  things  which  impress  every  observer.  The  darkness 
may  be  an  exaggeration  of  the  sand-storms  which  obscure  the  at- 
mosphere. P  chooses  only  a  part  of  those  narrated  by  his  pre- 
decessors and  makes  a  change  in  two  of  them  to  increase  their 
efficacy.1  Both  J  and  P  make  the  death  of  the  first-born  the  oc- 
casion for  instituting  the  passover  festival. 

The  endeavour  has  often  been  made  to  defend  the  Mosaic  au- 
thorship of  the  account  by  showing  its  intimate  acquaintance  with 
things  Egyptian.  To  appreciate  the  real  force  of  this  argument 
we  must  remember  the  relation  in  which  Palestine  always  stood 
to  Egypt.  We  might  compare  it  to  the  relation  of  Wales  to 
England  or  of  Switzerland  to  France.  Canaan,  as  the  smaller 
country,  always  looked  up  to  Egypt  as  its  powerful  neighbour. 
Egyptian  influence  always  extended  thither.  Often  Egypt  was 
the  real  or  nominal  possessor  of  the  country.  An  Egyptian  party 
was  always  found  at  the  court  of  Israel.  There  is  no  period  of 
the  history,  therefore,  in  which  an  intelligent  Israelite  could  be  ig- 
norant of  Egyptian  conditions  and  Egyptian  customs.  Doubtless 
a  journey  to  Egypt  was  made  by  every  man  that  travelled  from 
Palestine  for  business,  education,  or  pleasure.  When  we  consider 
these  facts,  the  wonder  is  that  the  Pentateuch  knows  so  little  of 
things  Egyptian.  The  Pharaohs  of  the  narrative  are  all  called 
Pharaoh,  but  no  one  of  them  is  brought  before  us  by  his  indi- 
vidual name.  This  is  in  striking  contrast  with  the  later  histori- 
cal books  of  the  Canon,  which  know  quite  well  their  Shishak, 
Necho,  and  Hophra.  Here  we  ask  in  vain  even  for  the  dynasty 
to  which  Joseph's  patron  belonged,  or  to  which  belonged  the  op- 
pressor and  the  father  of  Moses's  adopted  mother.  The  contest 
between  Yahweh  and  the  Egyptian  gods  is  referred  to,  but  no 
one  of  these  gods  is  brought  before  us  by  name.  The  peculiari- 
ties of  the  Egyptian  religion  are  so  marked,  and  its  contrasts  to 
the  religion  of  Israel  are  so  violent,  that  we  never  cease  to  won- 
der at  the  reticence  of  the  authors.  How  easy  it  would  have 
been  for  them  to  show  by  a  concrete  example  the  impotence  of 
Apis  and  Mnevis  !  The  ram  of  Mendes,  the  crocodiles  of  Ombos, 

1  The  flies  become  to  him  gnats  ;  the  murrain  on  cattle  is  changed  to 
boils  (?  small-pox)  among  men.  On  the  differences  between  the  documents 
in  the  matter  of  the  plagues,  cf.  Briggs,  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch 
(1897),  p.  148. 


EGYPT  AND   THE  DESERT  59 

the  obelisks  and  statues  of  the  various  temples  might  be  made  to 
point  a  contrast  between  the  God  of  Israel  and  the  objects  of 
Egyptian  blind  devotion,  such  as  would  adorn  the  tale  as  well  as 
point  a  much-needed  moral  for  times  to  come.  But  we  read 
nothing  of  this  kind.  In  a  writer  who  had  lived  in  the  midst  of 
these  abominations !  this  would  be  incomprehensible.  The  ab- 
sence of  local  colour  evident  in  every  chapter  of  the  narrative, 
then,  forbids  us  to  attribute  these  documents  to  an  author  brought 
up  in  Egypt.  And  when  we  look  at  those  resemblances  between 
Egyptian  and  "  Mosaic"  institutions  which  have  been  industri- 
ously collected  and  persistently  urged,  we  find  that  they  are  no 
more  than  are  discovered  in  comparing  the  religion  of  Israel  with 
other  early  religions. 

It  is  easy  to  show  that  at  other  points  than  religion,  the 
Hebrew  author  had  naive  conceptions  of  things  Egyptian.  We 
can  hardly  suppose  that  the  Pharaoh  ever  lived  in  so  little  state 
as  to  be  accessible  to  Moses  and  Aaron  whenever  they  chose  to 
seek  an  interview.  Was  the  capital  ever  at  Rameses  or  Succoth 
— or  did  the  king  come  thither  to  oversee  the  Israelite  labour? 
Did  the  Princess  Royal  regularly  take  her  bath  in  the  Nile? 
Does  the  Nile  flow  through  the  land  of  Goshen?  Such  questions 
readily  suggest  themselves.  The  difficulty  in  answering  them 
shows  that  we  have  to  do  with  a  picture  many  of  whose  details 
are  drawn  from  the  writer's  imagination  rather  than  from  his 
knowledge  of  Egypt.  Examination  of  the  proper  names  which 
occur  in  the  narrative  shows  us  scarcely  any  that  are  necessarily 
Egyptian.  That  of  Moses  himself  is  usually  so  classed.  But  the 
Hebrew  narrator  did  not  so  regard  it,  for  he  gives  it  a  Hebrew 
etymology.*  In  the  genealogies  of  P  we  do  find  an  occasional 
Egyptian  name;  thus  Aaron's  son  Eleazar  marries  the  daughter 
of  a  man  with  an  Egyptian  name,  and  he  calls  his  son  also  by  an 

'The  puzzling  expression  in  Ex.  8W,  for  we  shall  sacrifice  the  abomina- 
tion of  the  Egyptians,  may  show  that  the  author  knew  of  Egyptian  worship 
of  bulls  and  rams,  for  these  were  the  sacrificial  animals  of  Israel.  Did  he 
perhaps  write,  we  shall  sacrifice  the  gods  of  the  Egyptians  ?  This  would 
best  suit  the  context,  and  a  zealous  scribe  might  readily  substitute  the  word 
that  better  expressed  his  own  feelings. 

1  The  name  is  undoubtedly  older  than  the  story  of  the  daughter  of  Pha- 
raoh. It  does  not  seem  violent,  therefore,  to  revive  a  conjecture  now  dis- 
credited, that  it  was  given  to  Moses  as  the  Deliverer  (literally  Drawer-out 
of  his  people. 


6O  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

Egyptian  name.1  In  the  same  connexion  we  find  a  name  which 
may  be  that  of  the  Egyptian  god  Osiris.  But  these  indications 
in  the  latest  of  our  documents  cannot  be  made  the  basis  of  an 
argument.  Finally,  the  absence  of  any  conception  of  Egyptian 
history,  its  successive  dynasties,  its  relations  with  Canaan  and 
the  Sinaitic  peninsula,  points  in  the  same  direction.2 

The  climax  of  the  story  is  the  crossing  of  the  Red  Sea.  But 
the  narrative  here  shows  the  same  perplexing  combination  of  dif- 
ferent features  that  we  have  met  in  the  earlier  account.  P,  with 
the  exactness  of  detail  that  marks  his  narrative  elsewhere,  makes 
the  people  march  from  Rameses  to  Succoth,  thence  to  Etham  in 
the  edge  of  the  wilderness;  then  they  make  a  sharp  turn  and 
camp  by  the  sea  before  Pi-hahiroth,  between  Migdol  and  the  sea 
opposite  Baal  Zephon.3  Unfortunately  our  knowledge  of  the 
localities  is  not  sufficient  to  enable  us  to  identify  the  route  thus 
marked  out.  That  it  is  intended  to  emphasise  the  miracle  by 
bringing  Israel  into  a  situation  from  which  escape  seems  impos- 
sible, is  evident.  The  result  will  be  the  greater  glory  to  Yahweh. 
The  older  documents  are  much  less  definite.  The  earliest  one 
(J)  simply  tells  us  that  Israel  marched  to  the  border  with  the 
pillar  of  cloud  before  them.  When  Pharaoh  discovered  that 
they  were  leaving  the  land  with  no  purpose  of  returning,  he  pur- 
sued with  his  army.  To  relieve  the  terror  of  Israel  the  pillar  of 
cloud  guarded  the  rear  against  the  approaching  enemy.  Mean- 
while a  strong  wind  was  driving  back  the  waters  of  the  sea  so 
that  in  the  morning  the  bed  of  the  sea  was  dry.  The  destruction 

1  Putiel  and  Phinehas,  Ex.  6  25.  The  name  Phinehas  occurs  again  in  the 
family  of  Eli.  Whatever  Egyptian  influence  may  have  been  at  work  in  the 
period  of  Samuel  there  can  be,  here,  no  question  of  an  Egyptian  sojourn 
(i  Sam.  Is). 

1  The  reader  may  consult  an  article  by  Professor  Toy  in  the  New  World 
for  1893,  pp.  121-141.  The  Egyptian  features  of  the  Pentateuch  have  been 
diligently  emphasised  by  scholars,  either  to  prove  the  Mosaic  authorship  of 
the  Pentateuch  or  to  disprove  the  originality  of  the  Mosaic  revelation. 
Especially  persistent  has  been  the  attempt  to  connect  Hebrew  and  Egyptian 
religion.  The  earlier  essays  of  the  kind  were  laboriously  refuted  by  Wit- 
sius  in  his  sEgyptiaca  (Amsterdam,  1696),  and  his  contention  has  been 
upheld  by  recent  investigation.  On  Egyptian  religion,  cf.  Wiedemann, 
Religion  of  the  Ancient  Egyptians  (1897). 

8  Ex.  14 1~8.  The  account  intimates  that  the  route  was  one  not  natural 
for  the  people  to  take,  and  that  the  purpose  was  to  entice  Pharaoh  to  destruq- 
don. 


EGYPT  AND  THE  DESERT  6l 

of  the  Egyptians  was  accomplished  by  the  returning  flood  tide. 
It  is  vain  to  inquire  for  the  particular  point  at  which  this  author 
supposed  the  crossing  to  take  place.  The  great  variety  of  the- 
ories that  have  been  held  shows  the  insufficiency  of  the  data.1 
That  no  actual  occurrence  lies  at  the  basis  of  the  account  would 
be  too  much  to  say.  In  the  present  state  of  our  knowledge 
we  cannot  make  a  more  definite  statement  about  it  than  this : 
Early  Hebrew  tradition  relates  a  sojourn  in  Egypt  and  a  remark- 
able deliverance  under  Moses.  The  Song  of  Deliverance  is  a  late 
insertion  in  the  text,  and  besides  adds  nothing  to  the  prose 
description. 

The  object  of  bringing  Israel  out  of  Egypt  is  that  they  may 
worship  at  the  Mount  of  God  where  Moses  had  his  revelation. 
There  seems  no  reason  to  doubt  that  this  was  the  point,  three 
days'  journey  in  the  wilderness,  to  visit  which  Pharaoh's  consent 
was  asked  by  Moses.  The  perplexity  which  has  compassed  our 
efforts  to  define  the  events  of  the  exodus  is  still  encountered  as 
we  inquire  for  the  site  of  this  mountain.  At  least  three  sacred 
spots  are  named  at  which  Israel  met  its  God.  These  are  Sinai, 
Horeb,  and  Kadesh.  That  Sinai  and  Horeb  are  different  names 
for  the  same  mountain  is  possible,  but  when  we  observe  that  the 
two  names  characterise  different  documents  we  are  led  to  suspect 
that  they  were  originally  different  places  which  have  been  forci- 
bly brought  into  connexion  in  the  process  of  uniting  the  tradi- 
tions into  one  story.  As  in  other  cases,  the  most  circumstantial 
narrative  is  the  one  which  is  latest  in  order  of  time. 

It  is  significant  that  one  of  the  oldest  fragments  continues  the 
account  by  adding  immediately  after  the  crossing  of  the  Sea: 
"  Then  Moses  made  the  BenS  Israel  march  from  the  Red  Sea,  and 
they  went  forth  into  the  Wilderness  of  Shur  and  marched  three 

1  It  is  in  itself  suspicious  that  the  youngest  document  should  have  the 
most  detailed  information.  Our  one  fixed  point  is  the  uniform  tradition 
that  Israel  was  settled  in  Goshen.  This  district  is  clearly  identified  as  the 
eastern  part  of  the  present  Wadi  Tumilat.  Rameses  seems  to  have  been  at 
the  western  end  of  this  district.  Ktham  will  then  be  a  point  at  the  eastern 
end  "in  the  edge  of  the  desert."  The  present  tendency  is  to  identify  Pithom 
and  Etham.  Pi-hahiroth,  Migdol,  and  Baal  Zephon  are,  however,  still  obscure. 
Careful  articles  on  the  Exodus  and  Goshen  are  given  by  Hastings's  Diction' 
ary  of  the  Bible  and  the  Encyclopedia  Biblica.  The  localities  are  treated 
also  in  the  commentaries  and  in  numerous  other  works ;  compare  the  refer* 
ences  in  the  articles  just  named. 


62  OLD  TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

days  in  the  Wilderness  without  finding  water."  The  Wilderness 
of  Shur  is  known  to  us  as  the  district  lying  immediately  east  of 
the  isthmus  of  Suez.  It  is  evidently  the  thought  of  the  author 
that  the  Israelites  marched  straight  eastward.  The  objective 
point  in  his  narrative  has  been  displaced  in  the  compilation,  but 
we  can  hardly  doubt  that  it  was  Kadesh.  It  is  significant,  also, 
that  at  Marah,  after  the  sweetening  of  the  water  "  He  gave  him 
statutes  and  judgments,  and  there  He  tested  him."  This  was 
precisely  what  was  done  at  Sinai,  according  to  the  received  ac- 
count. It  does  not  seem  violent  to  suppose  that  this  earliest 
writer  meant  by  Marah,  whose  waters  were  sweetened,  the  foun- 
tain of  Kadesh,  but  that  the  name  Kadesh  has  been  excluded 
from  the  narrative  in  the  interest  of  harmony.  The  clause  there 
He  tested  him  is  an  evident  allusion  to  the  testing  which  gave  its 
name  to  the  place  Massah.  But  Massah  is  identified  with  Meri- 
bah,1  which  is  certainly  at  Kadesh.  On  the  ground  of  these  in- 
dications we  are  justified  in  assuming  that  the  earliest  traditions 
made  Israel  journey  from  Egypt  directly  to  Kadesh.  There  they 
sojourned  for  a  considerable  time,  Moses  acting  as  their  oracle 
and  leader,  and  thence  they  made  the  first  attack  upon  Canaan. 
Kadesh  is  in  fact  the  only  point  in  the  whole  region  where  a  con- 
siderable clan  can  find  sustenance  for  its  flocks.  We  may  easily 
suppose  that  the  earliest  narrative  made  Amalek  dispute  the  pos- 
session of  this  oasis  with  Israel.2 

In  favour  of  Kadesh  as  the  original  sanctuary  we  may  quote 
the  following  passage  from  the  Song  of  Moses  in  Deuteronomy : 

"  Yahweh  came  from  Sinai 
And  beamed  forth  unto  them  from  Seir : 
He  shone  forth  from  Paran 
And  came  from  Meribath  Kadesh."* 

1  Ex.  17  l~*.  The  location  of  Meribah  in  Kadesh  is  well  established  by 
Num.  20  1S,  27  M,  Ezek.  47  n,  48  w. 

1  Rephidim,  where  Amalek  fought  with  Israel  (Ex.  17  8-18),  is  mentioned 
in  direct  connexion  with  Massah  and  Meribah.  Perhaps  too  much  stress 
should  not  be  laid  upon  Judges  1 1  I6,  where  the  interpolator  gives  Egypt,  the 
Red  Sea,  and  Kadesh  as  the  three  stations  of  the  wanderings  of  Israel,  making 
no  mention  of  Sinai. 

*  It  is  admitted  by  recent  commentators  that  Meribath  Kadah  is  the  orig- 
inal reading  of  the  last  two  words.  With  this  verse  (Deut.  33  ')  compare 
32  M.  Dillmann  in  his  commentary  refers  to  Ewald,  who  claims  (Jahrbiichtr 
der  Bibl.  Wissenschaft,  III,  p.  234)  to  have  discovered  the  reading  many 
years  before  1851. 


EGYPT  AND  THE  DESERT  63 

The  verse  looks  like  an  attempt  to  combine  various  traditions 
concerning  the  ancient  residence  of  Israel's  God.  Kadesh  is  the 
climax  of  the  verse,  and  while  we  might  account  for  the  mention 
of  Sinai  and  Seir  as  indicating  the  general  region  from  which 
Yahweh  approached  Palestine,  Kadesh  can  be  brought  in  only 
because  of  a  definite  tradition  connected  with  it. 

In  the  Ode  of  Deborah  the  seat  of  Yahweh  from  which  He 
comes  to  rescue  His  people  is  Seir  and  the  field  of  Edom*  It  is 
possible  that  we  have  here  an  entirely  divergent  tradition.  But, 
on  the  other  hand,  it  is  possible  that  the  field  of  Edom  once 
extended  so  far  westward  as  to  include  Kadesh.  Without  laying 
too  much  stress  upon  this,  we  should  not  forget  that  the  rock 
from  which  Moses  brought  water  is  at  Kadesh,  according  to  the 
original  tradition  in  both  forms.2  This  tradition  is  in  fact  a 
legend  which  arose  in  connexion  with  the  sacred  fountain.  For 
at  Kadesh  a  copious  spring  gushes  forth  from  the  base  of  a  small 
hill  of  solid  rock.  In  accordance  with  ancient  Semitic  religion 
such  a  spring  and  the  rock  from  which  it  issues  would  certainly 
be  held  sacred.* 

Moses  established  his  clan  here,  himself  acting  as  minister  of 
the  oracle.  At  this  stage  of  religious  development  every  God 
assists  his  worshippers  by  revelations.  And  these  revelations 
concern  the  practical  affairs  of  life.  Disputes  between  tribesmen 
were  settled  by  "bringing  them  before  God."  Hence  the 
sanctuaries  of  repute  always  have  a  priest  whose  business  it  is  to 
receive  and  transmit  the  decisions  of  the  divinity.  In  one  of  our 
accounts  Moses  is  represented  as  hearing  and  deciding  cases  from 
morning  to  evening.  This  function  belongs  to  him  because  he 

1  Judges,  5  *.  The  mention  of  Sinai  in  the  next  verse  seems  to  be  an  inter* 
polation;  cf.  Moore  and  Budde  on  the  passage. 

1  Ex.  17*  mentions  Horeb,  but  this  is  an  interpolation,  as  is  shown  by 
Baentsch  (ffandkommentar).  The  parallel  account,  Num.  20 '-*,  locates  the 
event  at  Kadesh. 

1  On  Kadesh  we  have  the  elaborate  monograph,  Kadesh  Borneo,  by  Trum- 
bull  (1884),  where  earlier  authorities  are  discussed.  The  description  of 
Rowlands  is  there  quoted  in  full  (p.  214  f.),  and  confirmed  by  Trumbull'l 
own  observation  (p.  273).  On  sacred  fountains  among  the  Semites,  cf. 
Baadissin,  Studien  tur  Setnit,  Religionsgeschichte,  II,  pp.  143-183.  The 
Kenites  with  whom,  according  to  one  document,  Moses  was  affiliated  by 
marriage,  certainly  dwelt  in  the  region  of  Kadesh,  and  Amalek,  with  whom 
Israel  had  a  feud  from  the  time  of  the  Wandering,  also  belongs  in  tb« 
vicinity. 


64  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

has  the  counsel  of  Yahweh.  The  Hebrew  word  for  priest  shows 
that  the  man  so  designated  was  the  organ  of  divine  revelations. 
The  irony  of  history  is  illustrated  when  the  later  writers  deny 
the  priesthood  to  Moses.  It  is  not  difficult  to  suppose  that 
the  fountain  of  Kadesh  received  its  name  Fountain  of  Decision 
because  of  this  oracle  administered  by  Moses.  Further  evidence 
of  Moses's  connexion  with  Kadesh  may  be  found  in  the  fact  that 
his  Kenite  father-in-law  was  at  home  in  this  region.1 

While  this  is  the  oldest  tradition  concerning  the  desert  sojourn, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  other  accounts  named  Sinai  and 
Horeb  as  sacred  mountains.  In  a  region  like  the  Sinaitic  penin- 
sula we  should  be  surprised  not  to  find  a  number  of  peaks  viewed 
as  seats  of  divinities.  Nothing  in  our  documents  compels  us  to 
suppose  Horeb  and  Sinai  to  be  the  same,  or  to  make  one  name 
refer  to  the  group  and  the  other  to  a  single  peak.  The  elaborate 
attempts  which  have  been  made  to  fix  upon  one  of  the  mountains 
in  the  Sinaitic  group  as  the  Mount  of  the  Law  are  based  upon 
the  assumption  that  the  data  of  P  may  be  taken  for  history. 
When  we  surrender  these  data  we  are  left  with  only  the  vaguest 
intimations.  In  the  verse  quoted  above,  Sinai  is  associated  with 
Seir,  Paran,  and  Kadesh.  In  sharp  contrast  with  this  conception 
is  the  one  which  identifies  Sinai  with  a  peak  in  Midian.  Midian, 
so  far  as  we  know,  always  occupied  the  territory  east  of  the 
Aelanitic  gulf.  The  Mount  of  God  at  which  Moses  received  his 
call  is  put  by  E  on  the  western  edge  of  this  district.2  As  the 
mountain  is  also  called  Horeb  by  E,  we  can  hardly  help  seeing 
here  the  same  general  view  which,  in  relating  the  life  of  Elijah, 
makes  him  travel  forty  days  from  Beersheba  to  Horeb.  But  it 
is  hopeless  to  try  to  reconcile  this  with  the  statement  in  our 
Deuteronomy  that  there  are  eleven  days  from  Horeb  to  Kadesh 
Barnea.  The  latter  statement  again  throws  no  light  upon  the 
Deuteronomist's  location  of  Horeb.  The  divergence  of  the  tra- 
ditions must  be  evident,  and  this  divergence  is  just  what  we 
should  expect  in  documents  of  different  ages,  all  of  them  some 
centuries  removed  from  the  events  which  they  treat. 

And  if  the  chief  points  are  so  uncertain,  it  is  clear  that  no  satis- 
factory identification  of  the  itinerary  of  the  wandering  can  be 

1  Kadesh  is  apparently  more  than  three  days'  march  from  Egypt.  But  it 
is  impossible  to  base  an  argument  on  this  till  we  know  where  the  three  days* 
march  into  the  desert  was  to  start  from. 

•Ex.3». 


EGYPT  AND   THE   DESERT  6$ 

hoped  for.  The  attempts  hitherto  made  have  gone  on  the 
hypothesis  that  all  the  statements  of  the  Biblical  text  are  equally 
reliable.1  Thus  there  has  grown  up  a  tradition  that  the  Israelites 
crossed  the  Red  Sea  at  Suez,  moved  down  the  east  shore  of  the 
Gulf  of  Suez  to  what  is  now  known  as  Wadi  Feiran,  and  then 
turned  into  the  mountains,  camping  in  the  valley  Er-Raha  "  be- 
fore the  Mount."  This  is  doubtless  the  route  which  the  traveller 
would  take  to  reach  the  site  which  monkish  tradition  has  fixed 
upon  as  sacred.  But  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  southern 
end  of  the  peninsula  is  a  mass  of  mountains,  among  which  no 
single  peak  has  claims  to  pre-eminence.  That  a  caravan  of  even 
fifteen  hundred  people  (which  some  regard  as  the  original  clan 
of  Israel)  could  not  find  water  on  this  road  and  that  its  cattle 
could  not  subsist  there  even  in  the  spring — these  are  grave  objec- 
tions to  the  hypothesis.  And  when  we  seek  for  historical  evi- 
dence we  find  none.  Few  of  the  names  given  in  the  Hebrew 
narrative  have  survived,  a  fact  which  can  hardly  surprise  us  when 
we  remember  that  they  are  names  of  nomadic  encampments 
merely.  Those  which  are  descriptive  might  be  applied  to 
different  places — Marah,  for  example,  would  describe  almost  any 
of  the  springs  or  wells  in  the  region,  for  almost  all  the  water  is 
brackish.  But  the  most  discouraging  fact  is  the  one  already 
noted,  that  the  detailed  list  of  encampments  is  the  work  of  the 
latest  author  in  point  of  time,  and  is  the  product  of  his  impossible 
theory  of  the  wandering. 

Before  we  can  correctly  estimate  the  force  of  what  has  been 
said,  we  must  recall  to  mind  that  the  nation  which  reached  its 
highest  prosperity  under  Solomon  was  made  by  the  combination 
of  many  different  elements.  No  more  than  a  fraction  of  Israel 
ever  sojourned  in  the  wilderness  of  Kadesh.  That  a  fraction,  and 
an  important  fraction,  did  so  sojourn  is  clear  from  more  than  one 
indication.  The  story  of  the  wandering  is  one  indication.  Another 
is  the  sense  of  kinship  with  Esau  (Edom),  Moab,  Ammon, 
Midian,  and  Ishmael.  The  population  of  Arabia  has  always 

1  Modern  descriptions  of  the  peninsula  begin  with  Burckhardt,  Travels  in 
Syria  and  the  Holy  Land  (1822).  The  most  elaborate  attempts  at  identifi- 
cation were  made  by  Robinson,  Biblical  Researches,  Vol.  I  (Second  Edition, 
1856).  Compare  also  Palmer,  Desert  of  the  Exodus  (1872),  and  Trumbull, 
Kadesh  Barnea.  Recent  commentaries  on  the  Pentateuchal  books  discuss 
the  various  hypotheses. 


66  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

pressed  northward  toward  Syria.  We  may  readily  suppose — in 
fact  it  is  difficult  to  suppose  anything  else — that  these  tribes  (Esau, 
Moab,  and  Ammon)  were  a  part  of  the  great  Arabic  migration. 
The  sojourners  at  Kadesh  were  in  fact  Edomite  clans  which 
were  afterward  a  part  of  Judah,  and  so  finally  incorporated  with 
Israel.  Our  sources,  however,  do  not  recognise  a  North 
Arabian  kingdom  of  Mucri  of  which  much  is  now  said. 

The  importance  of  this  fraction  of  Israel  is  seen  in  the  impress 
which  their  institutions  made  upon  the  nation  of  which  they  be- 
came a  part.1  The  desert  has  always  favoured  the  tribal  organ- 
isation of  society,  and  this  social  organisation  was  so  firmly 
fixed  by  the  desert  sojourn  that  it  lasted  in  Israel  long  after  the 
adoption  of  the  agricultural  life.1  The  dwelling  in  booths  at  the 
autumn  festival  is  only  one  of  the  reminiscences  of  the  desert  so- 
journ. The  law  of  blood-revenge,  which  is  the  only  way  of  se- 
curing the  public  peace  in  the  desert,  continued  in  force  in  Israel 
long  after  it  was  a  settled  nation. 

The  religion  of  the  desert  is  polydaemonism.  The  jinn  in- 
habit every  rock  and  bush,  and  many  of  them  receive  worship 
from  men.  To  a  very  late  time  Israel  remembered  that  it  had 
worshipped  the  hairy  monsters  that  infest  the  desert.3  Totemism 
is  one  of  the  forms  in  which  tribal  man  attempts  to  come  into  re- 
lation with  superhuman  powers.  The  vestiges  of  totemism  which 
persist  in  the  tribe  names  of  Israel  show  that  this  people  formed 
no  exception  to  the  rule.  Circumcision  is  an  original  tribal 
mark,  very  probably  originating  in  the  desert.  The  earliest  ac- 
count we  have  of  its  introduction  in  Israel  dates  it  from  the  life 
of  Moses.4  In  one  of  the  desert  encampments  Yahweh  meets 

1  Notice  Buhl,  Sociale  Verhdltnisse  der  Hebrcier,  pp.  i,  9.  It  is  possible 
that  the  clan  of  Jerachmeel  was  the  original — or  at  least  early — occupant 
of  the  Kadesh  oasis.  But  I  am  not  able  to  follow  Prof.  Cheyne  in  discover- 
ing  numerous  references  to  this  clan  in  our  documents ;  see  the  article 
"Jerachmeel"  in  the  Encyclopedia  Biblica,  and  also  the  paper  entitled 
"  From  Isaiah  to  Ezra  "  in  the  American  Journal  of  Theology  (July,  1901). 

*On  traces  of  matriarchy  in  Israel  see  Gunkel,  Genesis,  p.  37;  Buhl, 
Sociale  Verhdltnisse,  p.  28. 

'Lev.  J7T.  Such  passages  show  how  wide  of  the  mark  is  Renan's 
theory  of  a  primitive  monotheism  of  desert-dwelling  tribes  (History  of  the 
People  of  Israel,  I,  pp.  28,  38  ff.). 

*  The  reader  will  remember  that  the  account  of  circumcision  in  Genesis 
is  given  by  the  latest  author,  while  the  one  now  under  discussion  is  a  part 
of  the  oldest  tradition,  embodied  in  J. 


EGYPT  AND  THE  DESERT  6/ 

Moses  and  threatens  to  kill  him.  Zippora  takes  a  sharp  stone 
and  circumcises  her  infant  son,  and  touches  her  husband  with  the 
blood,  whereat  the  wrath  of  the  God  is  turned  away.1  The 
only  plausible  interpretation  of  the  curious  account  is  that  cir- 
cumcision was  the  tribal  mark  which  brought  a  man  into  right 
relations  with  the  tribal  divinity.  Moses  was  a  member  of  the 
tribe  that  owed  allegiance  to  Yahweh — whether  as  an  Israelite  or 
as  adopted  by  the  Kenites  or  Midianites  we  are  not  told — but  he 
had  not  received  the  tribal  mark.  Hence  the  anger  of  the  God, 
which  was  appeased  by  the  circumcision  of  the  substitute.  We 
feel  ourselves  here  to  be  in  the  circle  of  the  most  primitive  ideas 
on  this  subject.  The  story  can  hardly  mean  to  account  for  the 
origin  of  circumcision,  but  probably  does  mean  to  intimate  that 
this  was  the  first  instance  of  its  application  to  infants.  The  insti- 
tution itself,  common  to  a  number  of  Asiatic  and  African  peoples, 
must  date  from  a  remote  antiquity. 

The  cycle  of  festivals  which  are  enjoined  in  the  later  religion 
of  Israel  is  connected  with  agricultural  life,  and  cannot  be  associ- 
ated with  the  desert.  The  Passover  in  its  primitive  form  is  an 
exception.  The  Israelites  were  shepherds.  The  firstlings  of  the 
flock  were  probably  sacrificed  in  the  spring-time,  as  was  the  case 
among  the  Arabs  down  to  a  recent  date.1  To  this  extent  He- 
brew tradition  is  correct  in  emphasising  the  Passover  celebra- 
tion at  the  exodus.  We  may  even  conjecture  that  the  sprinkling 
of  the  blood  on  the  door-posts  is  a  reminiscence  of  the  time 
when  the  tent  was  sprinkled  with  blood  as  the  opening  rite  of  a 
warlike  expedition.* 

The  Hebrew  writers  were  unconscious  of  the  extent  to  which 
their  institutions  were  survivals  from  their  nomad  life.  Their 
sense  of  the  importance  of  the  desert,  however,  is  seen  in  their 
account  of  the  Patriarchs,  whom  they  pictured  as  ideals  and  who 
are  in  every  case  Bedawin.  The  Rechabites,  who  appear  in  later 
history,  are  witnesses  to  the  same  mode  of  thought.  Their 
thought  was  that  agriculture  and  settled  habitations  were  contrary 

1  Ex.  4  "~M.  A  good  discussion  of  the  subject  is  contained  in  Marti, 
Ceschiehte  der  Israelititehen  Religion  (1897),  p.  43  f. 

1  W.  R.  Smith,  Religion  of  the  Semites,  pp.  210,  387,  445  f.;  Wellhausen, 
Jieste  Arabitchen  Heidentums,  p.  94  f. 

1  Traces  of  such  a  rite  are  found  among  the  Arabs  according  to  Marti, 
Getchithte  dtr  Itratlitischen  Keligion,  p.  40. 


OS  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

to  the  will  of  Yahweh.  The  only  reason  that  can  be  assigned 
for  this  view  is  the  fact  that  in  the  consciousness  of  the  people 
Yahweh  was  God  of  the  desert,  and  that  the  desert  life  was  the 
life  pleasing  to  Him.  The  fullest  expression  of  this  idea  is  the 
claim  on  the  part  of  all  our  documents  that  at  Sinai  (or  Kadesh) 
Yahweh  entered  into  covenant  with  Israel.  Before  this  He  had 
chosen  them  and  brought  them  out  of  Egypt;  but  the  purpose 
of  the  choice  was  that  the  covenant  might  be  made.  In  the 
oldest  document  the  covenant  seems  to  be  a  simple  agreement 
that  Yahweh  will  be  the  God  of  Israel,  and  that  He  will  go 
before  them  and  secure  them  in  possession  of  Canaan :  ' '  My 
presence  shall  go  with  thee  and  give  thee  rest."  l 

The  covenant  implies  some  sort  of  obligation  on  the  part  of 
Israel.  Obedience  to  the  will  of  God  is  the  natural  requirement 
when  a  special  relation  has  been  established  between  Him  and  a 
people.  This  is  the  more  obvious  to  the  desert  dweller,  because 
all  obligation  apart  from  that  of  blood-revenge  is,  in  a  nomad 
society,  the  result  of  special  agreement.  We  are  not  surprised, 
therefore,  to  find  each  of  our  documents  giving  a  divine  law  in 
connexion  with  the  wilderness  sojourn.  One  has  the  well-known 
Decalogue ;  another  (or  perhaps  the  same  one)  has  the  Book  of 
the  Covenant ;  a  third  hc.s  a  Decalogue  of  its  own ;  Deuteron- 
omy repeats  the  first  Decalogue  with  modifications ;  while  the 
Priestly  writer  introduces  at  Sinai  his  whole  elaborate  legislation 
together  with  its  portable  sanctuary.  The  most  primitive  of 
these  codes  is  doubtless  the  Decalogue  of  J.J  It  consists  of 
ritual  commands,  as  we  should  expect  in  a  religious  compact. 
In  its  earliest  form  it  seems  to  have  read  as  follows : 

"  Thou  shall  not  make  a  molten  God. 
Thou  shall  keep  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread. 
Every  male  that  opens  ihe  womb  is  mine. 
Six  days  shall  ihou  labour  and  on  Ihe  sevenlh  keep  Sabbath. 
The  feast  of  weeks  Ihou  shall  observe. 

1  Ex.  33 14.  The  verse  is  ascribed  to  a  later  stratum  of  J,  but  it  doubtless 
represents  an  early  idea.  The  difficulty  was  to  reconcile  the  continued  resi- 
dence  of  Yahweh  at  Sinai  with  His  journeying  in  Israel's  company.  One 
author  therefore  made  Him  send  His  angel,  the  other  His  presence  (coun- 
tenance) in  which  He  manifested  Himself. 

1  Ex.  34.  The  account  is  intelligible  only  on  the  hypothesis  that  the 
commands  of  the  latter  part  of  the  chapter  are  the  ones  written  upon  the  two 
tables  of  stone  which  Moses  brings  with  him  in  the  opening  verses. 


EGYPT  AND  THE  DESERT  69 

And  the  feast  of  ingathering  at  the  turn  of  the  year. 

Thou  shall  not  offer  the  blood  of  my  sacrifice  with  leaven. 

And  my  Passover  offering  shall  not  remain  until  morning. 

The  first-fruits  of  thy  ground  shall  thou  bring  lo  ihe  house  of  Yah- 

weh  thy  God. 
Thou  shall  noi  boil  a  kid  wilh  its  mother's  milk." 

The  comparative  antiquity  of  this  Decalogue  is  made  evident 
by  the  parallel  between  it  and  the  closing  section  of  the  Book  of 
the  Covenant.1  That  it  is  more  primitive  than  the  Decalogue 
of  Ex.  20  and  of  Deuteronomy,  must  be  evident.  The  latter 
shows  the  influence  of  the  prophetic  theology,  especially  in  the 
prominence  it  gives  to  the  duties  of  man  toward  man.  Never- 
theless the  commands  here  given  cannot  all  go  back  to  the  desert 
period.  The  majority  of  them  are  intelligible  only  in  connexion 
with  an  agricultural  state  of  society.  For  example,  the  Sabbath 
cannot  be  observed  by  the  shepherd,  for  his  work  requires  daily 
attention.  The  feast  of  weeks  and  the  feast  of  ingathering  are 
feasts  of  the  cultivator.  We  are  driven,  therefore,  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  this  Decalogue,  valuable  as  it  is  in  giving  us  knowledge 
of  Israelite  religion  after  the  settlement  in  Canaan,  cannot  give 
us  knowledge  of  what  took  place  before  the  conquest.1  If  the 
original  compact  between  Yahweh  and  Israel  included  a  series  of 
commands,  we  have  no  way  of  discovering  what  these  were.  On 
the  other  hand,  we  have  no  difficulty  in  supposing  a  covenant  on 
the  simple  term  of  obedience  to  the  voice  of  Yahweh  speaking  in 
His  prophet.  Moses  was  the  living  exponent  of  the  divine  will. 
At  Marah  (or  Massah)  he  gave  Israel  a  decree  and  a  decision ; 
Jethro  found  him  giving  to  the  people  "  the  decisions  of  God 
and  His  instructions";  the  original  Tent  of  Meeting  was  the 
place  where  God  talked  with  Moses;  Kadesh  is  called  En  Mish- 
pat  because  of  the  habitual  oracle  there  ministered  by  Moses. 
The  divine  afflatus  descends  not  only  upon  Moses  but  upon 

'This  was  pointed  out  by  Bruston,  Zeitschr.  fur  die  A  litest.  Wissenstk., 
XII  (1892),  p.  181  ff.  The  passage  in  question  is  Ex.  23  lwt — apparently 
the  displaced  copy  of  J's  first  Decalogue. 

1  Whether  ten  was  the  number  of  commands  in  this  series,  or  twelve  as 
some  suppose,  cannot  be  definitely  made  out,  as  the  passage  has  been  repeat- 
edly worked  over.  Ten  is  so  constant  a  number  in  the  tradition  that  the 
presumption  is  in  its  favour  here.  A  somewhat  different  arrangement  from 
the  one  given  above  is  found  in  Professor  Briggs's  instructive  comparison  of 
the  different  Decalogues,  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuth,*  (1897),  pp. 
189-210, 


70  OLD  TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

the  seventy  elders.1  The  thought  of  constant  divine  guidance 
through  prophets  or  seers  would  militate  against  the  giving  of 
any  extended  law.  All  that  a  primitive  covenant  would  natu- 
rally contain  is  an  obligation  to  obey  the  will  of  Yahweh  as  it 
should  be  revealed  in  His  prophet.  Or  shall  we  say  that  the 
original  covenant  was  a  promise  that  Yahweh  would  lead  the 
people  to  conquest  on  condition  that  they  would  regularly  give 
Him  the  first-born  males  of  the  flock  ?  The  importance  of  the 
first-born  in  Hebrew  tradition  might  justify  such  a  theory,  and  it 
is  certain  that  to  a  comparatively  late  date  public  opinion  in  Israel 
confided  in  the  help  of  Yahweh  because  of  the  fact  that  the  altars 
were  abundantly  supplied  with  victims. 

What,  then,  was  the  primitive  covenant  of  the  wilderness?  The 
mists  of  antiquity  prevent  our  seeing  distinctly,  but  we  may 
reasonably  suppose  that  the  religious  leader  who  had  brought 
a  nomad  clan  out  of  Egypt  was  able  to  impress  upon  them  the 
faith  that  Yahweh  had  chosen  them  as  His  own,  that  He  would 
lead  them  against  their  enemies,  and  that  He  would  give  them 
the  fair  land  on  which  they  had  cast  longing  eyes.  The  nat- 
ural expression  of  such  a  faith  would  be  a  covenant,  in  which 
the  different  fractions  of  the  people  would  renew  their  brotherhood 
and  vow  allegiance  to  Yahweh  and  His  prophet.  That  this  was 
a  coalition  of  tribes,  not  all  of  which  had  known  Yahweh  earlier, 
is  very  possible.  It  was  in  the  territory  of  Midian  that  Moses 
first  became  acquainted  with  the  new  divinity.  And  in  another 
account  it  is  Jethro  who  offers  the  first  sacrifice  to  Yahweh,  of 
which  Aaron  and  all  the  elders  are  invited  to  partake.*  The 
adoption  of  a  new  divinity  by  Israel  would  thus  be  in  a  certain 
sense  the  beginning  of  their  history,  and  the  importance  given 
by  tradition  to  the  Mosaic  age  would  be  justified  by  the  facts. 

The  covenant  with  the  people  involves  Yahweh's  journeying 
with  them.  Various  statements  in  our  sources  embody  the  vary- 
ing traditions  which  grew  up  on  this  theory.  The  pillar  of  cloud 
and  fire  is  one  author's  method.  Another  gives  the  promise  of 
the  angel  who  goes  as  Yahweh's  representative.  The  Ark  must 
originally  have  been  a  visible  pledge  of  His  presence,  and  th« 

1  Num.  1 1 14~30.  The  passage  is  ascribed  to  E  *,  but  I  see  no  reason  why 
it  may  not  represent  ancient  ideas. 

1  Budde,  Religion  of  Israel  to  the  Exile,  p.  23 ;  Giesebrecht,  Die  Ge- 
tehichtlichkeit  des  Sinai  Bundes  (inconclusive). 


EGYPT  AND  THE  DESERT  Jl 

veritable  place  of  His  dwelling.  The  Tent  of  Tryst  was  origi- 
nally parallel  to  the  Ark — not  a  dwelling-place  for  the  Ark,  but 
for  Yahweh  Himself.  The  Tabernacle  of  which  we  have  such  an 
elaborate  description  in  the  book  of  Exodus  is  a  very  late  fic- 
tion, created  by  the  theory  of  the  Priestly  author,  who  could  not 
conceive  the  congregation  of  Israel  existing  without  the  central 
sanctuary.  But  this  structure  had  as  a  prototype  the  earlier  and 
simpler  tent  called  the  Tent  of  Tryst.  A  tent  is  of  course  the 
only  practicable  sanctuary  for  a  nomad  people.  According  to  the 
account  in  our  hands,  this  Tent  was  originally  placed  in  the  midst 
of  the  camp,  but  was  later  removed  outside  owing  to  the  con- 
tamination of  the  people  in  the  worship  of  the  golden  bull.  The 
author's  meaning  is  that  Yahweh  was  willing  to  travel  with  His 
people,  and  so  to  be  accessible  to  them  by  the  mediation  of 
Moses.  The  whole  account  is  a  reflection  of  later  conditions  and 
its  historicity  is  open  to  grave  doubts.  The  Ark,  however,  makes, 
a  much  more  primitive  impression.  If  the  divinity  of  Sinai  or 
of  Kadesh  resided  in  a  rock — which  from  Arabic  analogies  seems 
very  probable — it  would  be  natural  for  the  people  to  secure  His 
presence  by  providing  a  chest  in  which  to  transport  the  fetish.1 

The  formation  of  such  a  covenant  as  we  have  assumed  would 
not  take  place  without  friction.  The  elevation  of  a  prophet  to 
the  leading  place  in  the  new  nation  would  naturally  call  out  the 
jealousy  of  the  earlier  leaders — the  Sheikhs.  It  is  possible,  there- 
fore, that  the  murmurings  of  the  people  against  Moses,  of  which 
our  narrative  is  full,  have  some  historic  background.  The  most 
definite  instance  is  the  rebellion  of  Dathan  and  Abiram.  These 
two  leaders  of  the  tribe  of  Reuben  object  to  Moses'  making  him- 
self a  prince  over  the  people,  and  apparently  charge  him  with 
self-interest  in  his  administration.1  Such  a  quarrel  was  certain 

1  Meinhold,  Die  Lade  Jahwe's,  revives  the  theory  that  the  Ark  was  a 
portable  throne.  But,  as  pointed  out  by  Budde,  Z.  Alttest.  Wissenseh.,  XXI, 
p.  193,  this  does  not  account  for  all  the  facts. 

1  Only  thus  can  we  understand  Moses'  declaration  that  he  had  not  taken 
an  ass  from  them,  Num.  16  14.  It  should  be  remembered  that  the  story  of 
Korah  and  his  company  is  a  separate  narrative,  and  belongs  in  the  Priestly 
document.  It  has  been  ingeniously  suggested  that  the  quarrels  here  described 
resulted  in  a  separation  of  the  Israelite  clans  into  two  bodies,  one  of  which 
attacked  Canaan  directly,  while  the  other  went  around  Edom  to  the  eastern 
desert ;  cf.  Steuernagel,  Einwanderung  der  hraelitiichen  Stdmmt  (1901) 
p.  107. 


72  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

to  arise  whenever  an  energetic  prophet  undertook  to  rouse  the 
people  to  a  new  effort.  The  details  of  the  narrative  are,  however, 
the  product  of  the  legend-building  imagination. 

The  results  with  which  we  have  to  content  ourselves  in  the 
Mosaic  period  are  meagre.  There  may  have  been  an  Israelite 
clan  that  sojourned  in  Egypt.  Its  exodus  was  not  improbably 
due  to  a  religious  leader.  Under  this  religious  leader  the  people 
entered  into  covenant  with  other  desert-dwelling  clans  at  Kadesh. 
The  God  who  sanctioned  the  alliance  and  who  became  a  party 
to  it  was  Yahweh,  the  Storm-God  of  Sinai.  He  was  henceforth 
the  leader  of  His  people  in  war,  and  under  His  encouragement 
they  undertook  the  conquest  of  Canaan. 


CHAPTER  V 

TH  E    CONQUEST 

ACCORDING  to  the  Pentateuch,  Israel  made  an  attempt  upon 
Canaan  from  the  south  and  were  repulsed,  whereupon  they  made 
the  circuit  of  Edom,  took  possession  of  Gilead  and  Bashan,  and 
entered  Canaan  by  the  Jordan  valley  at  Jericho.  Although  we 
hear  of  the  repulse  on  the  southern  border,  we  know  that  Judah 
was  in  part  made  up  from  clans  which  always  had  their  seat  in 
that  region.  We  suspect,  therefore,  that  the  circuit  of  Edom  is  a 
device  of  the  narrator  to  unite  two  discordant  traditions.  In  fact 
it  is  clear  on  reflection  that  the  attack  of  Israel  on  the  coveted 
land  was  made  at  more  than  one  point,  and  that  it  was  repeated 
with  varying  success  a  number  of  times  before  their  footing  was 
secure.  The  clans  settled  at  Kadesh  were  only  a  minute  fragment 
of  what  afterward  became  the  people  of  Israel. 

Palestine  is  so  situated  that  it  has  been  the  scene  of  almost 
continuous  conflict  from  the  earliest  times.  Lying  between  Egypt 
and  the  great  Asiatic  empires  it  was  an  object  of  desire  to  both 
its  more  powerful  neighbours.  Almost  more  constant  is  the  men- 
ace of  the  Bedawin  on  its  south  and  east.  Arabia  has  always  pro- 
duced more  men  than  it  can  nourish.  Perhaps  in  no  part  of  the 
world  is  the  population  so  constantly  on  the  verge  of  starvation. 
The  Bedawy  is  at  the  end  of  the  year  just  where  he  was  at  the 
beginning  of  the  year.  Nine  months  of  the  twelve  the  milk  of 
his  flocks  has  barely  sufficed  to  keep  him  alive.  That  such  a 
people  live  in  a  chronic  state  of  warfare  is  natural.  The  culti- 
vated country  on  the  border  of  which  they  dwell  is  the  constant 
object  of  their  desire.  History  shows  their  steady  pressure 
toward  this  goal.  Two  streams  of  migration  have  issued  from 
Arabia  from  time  immemorial.  One  proceeds  northward  from 
the  Hejaz  and  threatens  Palestine  directly.  The  other  strikes 
eastward  and  impinges  upon  the  kingdoms  of  the  Euphrates 
valley.  But  as  these  kingdoms  have  usually  been  well  organised, 
this  second  stream  has  worked  its  way  northward  until  it  meets 

73 


74  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

the  great  current  which  flows  from  the  northeast.  Baffled  by 
this,  it  has  bent  around  the  north  end  of  the  desert,  overflowed 
the  oasis  of  Damascus,  and  reached  Palestine  by  way  of  Bashan. 
There  is  reason  to  suppose  that  both  these  streams  have  always 
had  a  part  in  the  peopling  of  Palestine.1  Both  of  them  are 
therefore  represented  in  the  people  that  called  itself  Israel.  Jacob 
is  persistently  connected  with  Aram  by  the  Hebrew  writers : 
Abraham  is  an  immigrant  from  the  Euphrates  region ;  while,  as 
we  have  just  seen,  the  affiliation  with  Esau,  Midian,  and  the 
Kenite  would  point  to  an  Arabian  source. 

The  Canaanite  or  Amorite  population  that  was  displaced  or 
absorbed  by  Israel  was  an  earlier  wave  of  the  same  flowing  tide. 
What  the  earliest  population  of  Canaan  was,  we  have  no  means  of 
"knowing.  Hebrew  tradition  gives,  indeed,  the  outlandish  names 
of  Zamzummim,  Emim,  Zuzim,  and  others.  But  these  are  too 
slight  a  foundation  for  a  theory.  The  Canaanites  who  were  in  full 
possession  before  the  coming  of  Israel  were  evidently  kinsfolk  of 
their  conquerors.  Israel's  pride  led  to  the  denial  of  the  relation- 
ship, for  the  genealogies  derive  Canaan  from  Ham.  But  this  is 
a  late  hypothesis.  All  the  facts  go  to  show  that  Phoenicians, 
Canaanites,  and  Hebrews  were  from  the  same  original  stock. 
This  was  once  distinctly  taught,  it  would  seem,  in  the  account  of 
the  curse  of  Canaan.1 

In  the  struggle  which  has  gone  on  from  time  immemorial  for 
the  possession  of  Palestine,  nothing  is  more  remarkable  than  the 
weakness  of  both  parties,  a  weakness  founded  on  their  lack  of  co- 
hesion. Whenever  the  people  of  the  settled  country  have  been 
united  under  an  energetic  ruler  they  have  laughed  to  scorn  the 
attempts  of  the  nomads.  When  the  nomads  have  laid  aside  their 
tribal  jealousies  they  have  become  irresistible.  But  for  the  most 
part  neither  one  thing  nor  the  other  has  taken  place.  The  inhabi- 
tants of  Canaan  were  usually  divided  into  petty  states  unable  to 
make  common  cause  even  under  the  severest  pressure.  The  desert 

1  It  is  not  within  the  province  of  this  history  to  discuss  the  general  ques- 
tion of  the  origin  of  the  Semitic  peoples.  The  reader  may  consult  Barton, 
A  Sketch  of  Semitic  Origins  (1902)  and  Paton,  Early  History  of  Syria. 
These  authors  agree  that  Arabia  is  the  region  from  which  the  Semitic  peoples 
(so  far  as  we  know  them  historically)  emigrated.  We  must  bear  in  mind 
that  migration  of  peoples  was  the  rule  rather  than  the  exception  down  to 
Very  recent  times. 

'  See  the  chapter,  "  Noah  als  Winzer,"  in  Budde's  Biblische  Urgeschichtt. 


THE  CONQUEST  75 

dwellers,  in  their  turn,  never  dreamed  of  yielding  their  indepen- 
dence in  order  to  unite  in  any  movement,  however  important. 

The  unification  of  Israel — so  far  as  it  was  accomplished  at  all- 
was  accomplished  under  Solomon.  The  conquest  (to  retain  the 
conventional  term)  had  been  going  on  for  four  centuries  or 
more.  For,  as  we  now  know,  before  the  exodus  took  place,  or 
at  least  as  early  as  the  time  when  the  southern  clans  were  sojourn- 
ing at  Kadesh,  Asher  was  already  in  its  later  seat  in  northern 
Palestine,  while  two  districts  in  the  centre  of  the  country  bore 
the  names  Jacob  and  Joseph.  Even  more  significant  is  it  to 
find  somewhere  in  the  region  a  people  called  Israel  mentioned  in 
the  Egyptian  lists — lists  which  give  the  conquests  of  the  Pharaoh 
usually  identified  with  the  Pharaoh  of  the  exodus.1 

It  is  not  without  reason  that  the  Hebrew  narrative  makes  the 
attempt  from  the  south  a  failure.  The  clans  settled  at  Kadesh 
can  never  have  been  powerful,  for  the  desert  in  that  region  could 
not  support  more  than  a  very  scanty  population.  The  conflict  with 
the  Amalekites  must  also  have  kept  down  their  strength.  It  was 
only  after  the  allied  tribes  had  effected  their  entrance  into  Canaan 
that  Caleb  began  to  move  northward,  finally  coalescing  with 
Judah.  The  importance  which  Hebrew  story  gives  to  the  desert 
sojourn  is  due  to  the  consciousness  that  the  tribes  which  brought 
Yahweh  with  them  made  the  most  important  contribution  to  the 
life  of  the  people. 

*The  mention  of  Asher  in  inscriptions  of  Seti  and  Rameses  II  (about 
1400  B.C.)  is  affirmed  by  \V.  M.  Miiller,  Asien  und  Eurofea  in  Altagyp~ 
tischen  Denkmdlern,  p.  236  ff.  On  Jacob  and  Joseph  (in  the  significant 
forms  Jacob-el  and  Joseph-el),  compare  the  same  work,  p.  162  ff.,  and  Meyer 
in  the  Zeitschr.f.  d.  Alttest.  Wissensch.t'V\,  pp.  I-i6.  These  names  occur 
in  a  list  of  Thothmes  III.  The  mention  of  Israel  in  an  inscription  of  Mern- 
ephtah  is  in  such  terms  as  to  show  the  people  already  settled  in  the  coun- 
try. Cf.  Offord  in  the  Proceedings  Soc.  Bib.  Arch.t  1898,  p.  55  ;  Steindorff 
in  the  Zeitschr.  Alttest.  Wissensch.,  XVI,  pp.  330-333;  Spiegelberg  in  the 
Sitzungsbericht  d.  Berliner  Akademie,  1896,  p.  193  ff.;  Griffiths  in  the  Con- 
temporary Revinv,  May,  1896.  The  most  complete  discussion  of  this  inscrip- 
tion is  by  Wiedemann  in  Le  Muston,  Louvain,  1898,  pp.  89-107.  Wiede- 
mann  emphasises  the  unreliable  nature  of  the  statements  made  in  honour 
of  an  Egyptian  king.  When  all  allowance  is  made  for  the  tendency  of 
the  scribe  to  exaggerate  the  exploits  of  his  monarch,  it  still  remains  true 
that  in  the  time  of  Mernephtah,  in  connexion  with  a  list  of  Canaanite  town* 
an  Egyptian  was  able  to  say,  "  Israel  is  laid  waste,  its  corn  is  annihilated. ** 
The  statement,  however  false  or  exaggerated,  is  inconceivable  unless  at  thai 
date  Israel  were  known  as  a  settled  people  in  Canaan, 


76  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

In  itself  considered,  the  story  of  a  march  around  Edom  pre- 
sents no  improbability.  The  Sinaitic  Bedawin  of  the  present  day 
extend  their  raids  into  the  eastern  desert  beyond  Damascus.  Were 
the  vigilance  of  the  defenders  of  Canaan  relaxed  at  any  one  point, 
no  doubt  that  exposed  point  would  attract  invaders  from  every 
part  of  the  wilderness.  The  unhistorical  character  of  the  ac- 
count is  evident,  however,  from  that  part  of  it  which  narrates  the 
conquest  of  the  country  beyond  Jordan.  That  two  battles  should 
put  Israel  into  complete  possession  of  this  rugged  and  defensible 
country  is  incredible.  Legend  has  here  condensed  a  long  proc- 
ess into  a  single  campaign.  The  region  in  question  was  chroni- 
cally in  dispute  between  Israel,  Moab,  Ammon,  and  Syria — not 
to  speak  of  Sihon  and  Og,  who  appear  in  our  narrative.  The 
fragments  of  verse  with  which  the  story  is  adorned1  really  com- 
memorate the  battles  and  raids  of  a  later  time,  at  least  as  late  as 
the  time  of  Omri.  It  is  possible  that  the  earliest  struggle  was 
between  the  Amorites  and  Reuben,  the  latter  being  allied  with 
Moab  and  Ammon.  A  fragment  of  the  earlier  people  was  adopted 
in  Israel  by  the  name  Gad.* 

What  is  quite  certain  is  that  Israel  was  settled  in  the  transjor- 
danic  territory  before  the  invasion  of  Canaan  proper.  In  historic 
times  the  district  belonged  to  Reuben,  who  is  called  the  first-born 
of  Israel.  The  dignity  thus  assigned  to  him  shows  that  tradition 
made  these  the  first  Israelite  settlements.  In  the  time  of  Saul  we 
find  that  Jabesh  Gilead  was  fully  Israelite.  The  association  of 
Jacob-Israel  with  Mahanaim  and  Penuel  is  an  indication  of  the 
same  sort,  while  the  fact  that  Ishbaal,  the  son  of  Saul,  found  a  se- 
cure refuge  at  Mahanaim  (as  did  David  when  compelled  to  leave 
his  capital)  shows  that  Israelite  blood  had  its  claims  fully  recog- 
nised in  these  ancient  settlements.  Once  thoroughly  established 
in  Gilead,  Israel  had  a  base  of  attack  for  the  reduction  of  Canaan. 

The  El  Amarna  tablets,  discovered  and  deciphered  in  our  own 
time,  have  thrown  a  strong  light  upon  the  state  of  affairs  in 
Canaan  in  the  fourteenth  century  before  Christ.  We  have  already 
seen  that  Palestine  is  necessarily  the  bone  of  contention  between 
Egypt  and  any  strong  power  in  Western  Asia.  Some  time  before 

>  I  refer  to  Num.  21  '"."-so. 

1  Cf.  Paton,  Early  History  of  Syria,  p.  150.  The  tribe  of  Gad  called 
Itself  by  the  name  of  its  divinity,  of  whose  worship  in  Syria  we  have  many 
evidences,  Baethgen,  Beitrdge  zur  Semit.  Religionsgesthichte,  I,  pp.  76-80. 


THE  CONQUEST  77 

the  date  of  the  tablets,  Babylon  had  evidently  been  in  possession 
of  the  country,  for  it  is  Babylonian  script  which  is  used  by  the 
writers  even  in  communicating  with  the  Egyptian  court.  The 
actual  (or  rather  nominal)  suzerain,  however,  was  Egypt ;  and  the 
records  show  that  at  this  time  the  power  or  vigilance  of  the  recog- 
nised chief  monarch  was  much  relaxed.  The  Egyptian  court  ap- 
pointed native  rulers  with  the  title  of  king,  each  having  under  him 
a  single  city  with  its  dependent  towns.  Each  of  these  princelings 
paid  tribute  when  forced  to  pay  it ;  each  was  lavish  in  protesta- 
tations  of  fidelity  to  his  chief,  "  his  god,  his  sun  ";  each  was  lavish 
in  excuses  when  he  thought  it  safe  to  withhold  his  present ;  each 
was  ready  to  fight  for  his  own  hand  against  his  neighbours.  In 
case  of  serious  invasion  each  was  ready  to  claim  the  protection  of 
Egypt,  but  each  was  equally  ready  to  join  hands  with  the  invaders 
if  Egypt  should  show  weakness  or  neglect. 

Now  it  is  interesting  to  discover  that  a  somewhat  serious  in- 
vasion was  in  progress  at  the  time  when  these  letters  were  written. 
We  read  repeated,  earnest,  sometimes  despairing  appeals  of  the 
princes  for  Egyptian  help.  The  enemy  seems  to  be  a  Bedawin 
people  who  are  called  Chabiri.  They  come  from  the  north,  and 
threaten  Phoenicia  as  well  as  Palestine  proper.  Their  attack 
seems  most  pressing  in  Phoenicia,  for  we  find  the  most  urgent 
appeals  for  help  sent  from  Gebal,  Beirut,  Sidon,  and  Tyre — from 
whose  governors  some  towns  or  fortresses  have  already  been  taken. 
In  this  region  the  invaders  are  united  under  a  leader  named  Abd- 
Ashera,  whose  followers  are  sometimes  called  his  sons.  It  is  rather 
curious  to  note  that  this  sheikh  claims  himself  to  be  subject  to 
Egypt.  In  Canaan  similar  bands  are  threatening  Jerusalem, 
Makkedah,  Hazor,  and  Gezer.  On  the  other  hand,  places  in  Phi- 
listia  such  as  Ashkelon  have  not  yet  been  molested. 

Interesting  points  brought  out  by  the  letters  are :  the  compara- 
tive feebleness  of  the  separate  bands  of  invaders,  and  the  readi- 
ness of  the  native  chiefs  to  enter  into  alliance  with  them.  The 
feebleness  is  brought  out  by  the  requests  for  help  which  in  all 
cases  assume  that  only  a  very  few  Egyptian  soldiers  will  be 
necessary.  The  writers  even  in  their  greatest  stress  seem  to 
think  that  fifty,  forty,  even  twenty  Egyptian  soldiers  will  be 
able  to  defend  their  towns  against  the  enemy.  No  doubt  we 
here  discover  a  constant  feature  of  the  long  struggle  with  the 
Bedawin.  The  invaders  have  no  means  of  compelling  walled 


78  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

towns.1  Siege-works  and  battering-rams  are  wholly  beyond 
them.  If  only  the  walls  are  sound  and  provisions  do  not  give 
out,  the  citizens  may  scoff  at  the  invaders.  For  the  most  part 
the  attempt  to  reduce  a  fortress  by  starvation  will  fail,  for  the 
besiegers  themselves  have  no  regular  commissariat.  If  they  bring 
their  flocks  with  them  they  soon  graze  off  the  immediate  neigh- 
bourhood and  are  compelled  to  move  on. 

These  considerations  show  how  the  process  may  extend  over  a 
long  period  of  time.  Occasionally,  no  doubt,  a  large  company  of 
invaders  may  carry  a  place  by  sudden  assault.  The  religious 
frenzy  which  drives  them  to  such  a  deed  is  likely  to  lead  to  the 
extermination  of  the  unfortunate  victims.  By  a  solemn  vow  the 
town  and  its  inhabitants  are  in  such  a  case  devoted  to  the  divinity 
whom  the  assaulting  party  regards  as  its  leader.  The  story  of 
Jericho  shows  the  thoroughness  with  which  one  such  vow  was 
carried  out.  Mesha  of  Moab  boasts  of  the  Israelite  towns  which 
he  had  thus  ' '  devoted  ' '  to  Chemosh. 

But,  for  the  most  part,  such  extreme  measures  are  not  reached. 
The  townspeople  recognise  that  it  is  better  to  make  peace  with 
their  tormentors.  By  the  payment  of  blackmail  they  can  make 
allies  of  their  enemies,  and  perhaps  even  employ  them  against 
their  neighbours  with  whom  they  are  at  feud.  In  the  desert  it  is 
not  uncommon  for  the  cultivators  of  the  oases  to  pay  tribute  to 
the  Bedawin  in  order  to  secure  themselves  peace.  Mohammed's 
terms  at  Kheibar  are  only  a  specimen  of  what  has  taken  place 
again  and  again.  So  the  men  of  Jabesh  were  willing  to  enter  into 
any  reasonable  arrangement  with  the  Ammonites.  It  was  only 
the  harshness  and  humiliation  of  the  terms  actually  offered  which 
prevented  an  understanding  in  this  case.  When  an  understanding 
is  once  reached,  the  parties  are  on  amicable  terms  enough.  The 
Bedawin  agree  to  respect  the  rights  of  the  townsmen,  and  honour- 
ably carry  out  the  agreement.  Alliances  are  made  between  indi- 
viduals on  both  sides ;  the  Arab  has  a  friend  in  town  whom  he 
visits,  the  townsman  has  some  one  to  whom  he  can  appeal  in  case 
the  flocks  trespass  on  the  cultivated  ground.  Intermarriage  fol- 
lows, and  the  final  amalgamation  of  the  two  stocks.  The  Patri- 
archal sagas  already  considered  give  evidence  that  many  such 

1  The  inability  of  Mohammed's  enemies  to  carry  the  very  feeble  entrench- 
mrnts  at  Medina,  in  the  Campaign  of  the  Ditch,  is  a  striking  illustration  of 
a  similar  condition  of  things. 


THE  CONQUEST  79 

alliances  were  entered  into  by  Israel.  For  instance,  Abraham 
ind  Isaac  both  make  covenants  with  Abimelech.  Judah  has  a 
friend  Hirah  the  Adullamite,  who  is  of  the  earlier  inhabitants, 
and  he  takes  Tamar,  a  Canaanitess,  as  wife  for  his  son.  The 
allies  of  Abraham  in  the  very  late  account  of  his  attack  upon 
Chedorlaomer  are  Canaanites.  Jacob's  purchase  of  ground,  and 
Abraham's  purchase  of  a  burial-place,  are  examples  of  titles  se- 
cured by  peaceful  means.  The  early  documents  know  that  the 
conquest  was  an  extended  process.  Thus  we  have  a  promise  of 
Yahweh  given  by  the  mouth  of  Moses  to  the  effect  that  He  would 
not  drive  the  enemy  out  suddenly,  but  little  by  little.1 

The  El  Amarna  tablets  reveal  a  somewhat  extended  invasion 
going  on.  Whether  it  be  the  Hebrew  immigration  is  not  yet 
certainly  made  out.  The  Chabiri  of  the  tablets  cannot  be 
affirmed  to  be  the  Hebrews.  But  Chabiri  and  Hebrews  are  a 
part  of  the  same  general  stream  of  migration.  We  see  alliances 
already  forming  between  the  towns  and  the  invaders.  The  Old 
Testament  testifies  that  Israel  established  itself  by  means  of  such 
alliances.  Later  writers  make  this,  indeed,  the  basis  of  a  serious 
charge  against  Israel.1 

1  Exod.  23  *-*>. 

1  The  cuneiform  tablets  discovered  at  El  Amarna  in  Egypt  are  published  in 
transliterated  text  with  translation  by  VVinckler  (Keilinschr.  Bibliothtk,  V, 
Berlin,  1896).  Up  to  the  time  of  their  discovery  it  was  not  known  that 
Egypt  had  any  rights  in  Canaan  at  the  time  of  the  conquest — the  Hebrew 
sources  nowhere  show  any  knowledge  of  this  fact.  The  unsettled  state  of 
the  country  at  the  writing  of  the  tablets  is  indicated  by  the  complaint  of 
Burnaburiash,  king  of  Babylon,  that  his  caravans  have  been  plundered  on 
their  way  to  Egypt  (Winckler,  p.  27).  It  is  not  only  the  Chabiri  who  are 
dangerous  to  the  towns,  we  hear  also  of  the  Amorites  and  Hittites  as  hostile 
to  the  Egyptian  supremacy.  The  Chabiri  who  follow  Abd  Ashera  are  some- 
times described  as  coming  from  Mitanni  and  Kash,  which  were  Mesopo- 
tamian  countries  (pp.  185,  189).  They  were  in  alliance  with  the  Hittites,  or 
were  perhaps  mercenaries  in  their  service,  for  they  seem  also  to  have  en- 
listed as  mercenaries  under  the  Canaanitish  rulers  (Letter  144,  p.  265).  That 
they  were  ready  to  enter  into  alliance  with  the  natives  is  illustrated  by  the 
petition  of  the  people  of  Gebal  to  their  governor  that  he  "  make  alliance  with 
the  Sons  of  Abd  Ashera,  that  we  may  have  peace"  (p.  203),  and  in  the  com- 
plaint that  the  people  are  falling  away  to  the  Chabiri  (p.  299).  Various 
points  of  interest  in  the  tablets  are  brought  out  by  Petrie,  Syria  and  Egypt 
from  the  Tell  El  Amarna  Letters  (N.  Y.,  1898);  Trampe,  Syrien  vor  dem 
Eindringen  der  Israeliten  (Berlin,  1898) ;  Klostermann,  Ein  Diplomatiseher 
Briefivechsel aus dem  rweiten  Jahrtausend  vor  Christi  (Kiel,  1898);  Niebuhr, 
Die  Amarna  Zeit  (Leipzig,  1899) ;  Tastrow.  in  the  Journal  of  Bibl.  Lit.,  XI* 


8o  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

As  we  might  expect,  the  literary  imagination  compressed  the 
long  process  of  conquest  into  a  short,  sharp  conflict.  The  book  of 
Joshua  was  the  result.  In  this  narrative,  Israel,  after  encamping 
some  time  in  the  Plains  of  Moab,  crosses  the  Jordan  and  estab- 
lishes itself  at  Gilgal.  Here  the  reproach  of  Egypt  is  rolled  away 
by  the  circumcision  of  the  people.  Spies  are  sent  out  who  dis- 
cover that  the  people  of  the  land  are  already  in  a  panic.  Jericho 
falls  by  a  miracle,  and  is  made  an  example  by  utter  "devotion." 
Even  the  ground  on  which  the  ruins  lie  is  put  under  a  curse. 
A  reverse  at  Ai  is  the  means  of  discovering  Achan's  sacrilege. 
After  his  detection  and  punishment  the  town  falls,  being  devoted 
like  Jericho.  Its  destruction  is  followed  by  the  building  of  an 
altar  on  Ebal.  Then  comes  the  treaty  with  the  Gibeonites,  se- 
cured by  deceit  on  their  part,  and  conceded  by  criminal  careless- 
ness on  the  part  of  Joshua.  The  treaty  is  resented  by  the  Canaan- 
ites,  who  attack  the  new  allies  of  Israel.  This  gives  Joshua  new 
occasion  for  battle,  and  the  natives  are  routed  at  Beth-horon — 
a  battle  marked  by  direct  divine  interposition  in  response  to 
Joshua's  prayer.  The  capture  of  the  cities  in  the  region  is  an  easy 
matter,  and  the  inhabitants  are  without  exception  devoted  at  the 
edge  of  the  sword. 

This  experience  is  duplicated  for  the  northern  part  of  the 
country.  Jabin,  king  of  Hazor,  gathers  an  immense  army  at  the 
Waters  of  Merom.  Joshua  destroys  the  army,  hamstrings  the 
horses,  and  burns  the  chariots.  After  this,  he  takes  possession  of 
the  cities,  exterminating  the  inhabitants,  but  taking  the  property 
for  Israel.  There  follows  a  list  of  the  kings  that  have  been  over- 
thrown. The  whole  land  is  left  entirely  free  for  Israel  to  parti- 
tion and  occupy.  The  description  and  assignment  of  the  terri- 
tory occupy  the  latter  part  of  the  book.1 

p.  95  ff.,  XII,  p.  61  ff.  Paton,  Early  History  of  Syria,  p.  ill  ff.;  Winckler, 
Keilinschriften  und  Altes  Testament?  p.  196  ff. 

The  reader  may  perhaps  object  to  the  El  Amarna  letters  being  called  to 
testify  to  the  condition  of  Palestine,  both  in  the  Patriarchal  period  and  at  the 
time  of  the  conquest.  Strictly  speaking,  they  testify  to  the  state  of  things  a 
little  before  the  Israelite  invasion.  But  they  imply  that  a  similar  condition 
had  existed  during  some  centuries  before  the  time  of  their  composition. 

1  The  Book  of  Joshua  falls  naturally  into  two  parts ;  first  an  account 
of  the  battles  with  the  Canaanites,  then  a  sketch  of  the  division  of  the  coun- 
try among  the  tribes.  The  latter  ^chapters  13-24)  is  simply  a  reflection  of 
geographical  divisions  as  they  existed  at  a  later  time.  This  section,  at  an/ 


THE  CONQUEST  8l 

It  is  only  an  a  priori  objection  to  this  account  to  say  that  no 
nation  ever  dealt  with  a  conquered  country  in  this  wholesale 
manner,  or  that  the  complete  extermination  of  a  whole  people  is 
an  impossibility.  The  defender  of  the  narrative  might  plead 
that  in  this  case  the  impossible  took  place,  and  that  Israel's 
exigency  required  measures  elsewhere  unparalleled  in  history. 
What  leads  us  to  doubt  the  historicity  of  the  narrative  is  the  fact 
(already  noted)  that  the  Old  Testament  sources  themselves  give 
abundant  indications  of  another  sort  of  conquest.  It  is,  for 
example,  a  frequent  complaint  of  the  Old  Testament  writers  that 
Israel  did  not  exterminate  the  earlier  inhabitants  of  Canaan.  On 
the  one  side,  this  is  attributed  to  the  incorrigible  lust  of  Israel  for 
alliance  and  intermarriage  with  the  heathen  ;  on  the  other  side, 
it  is  accounted  for  by  the  purpose  of  Yahweh  Himself.  Either 
He  left  the  people  of  the  land  to  be  gradually  dispossessed, 
in  order  that  the  wild  animals  might  not  increase  and  become 
unconquerable  ;  or  He  left  them  in  order  that  Israel  might  be 
kept  in  martial  exercise ;  or  else  He  kept  them  to  test  Israel's 
fidelity  to  himself  in  full  view  of  the  religions  of  Canaan ;  or 
finally,  He  kept  them  alive  as  scourges  with  which  to  punish  His 
people's  disobedience.1  The  variety  of  explanations  emphasises 
the  fact  that  the  Canaanites,  so  far  from  being  destroyed  by 
Joshua,  were  a  prominent  part  of  society  at  least  down  to  the 
time  of  Deuteronomy. 

Equally  significant  is  the  testimony  of  other  documents  to  the 
fact  that  the  cities  said  to  have  been  destroyed  by  Joshua  were 
not  actually  in  the  possession  of  Israel  until  a  much  later  time. 
The  most  conspicuous  example  is  Jerusalem,  which  did  not  be- 
come Israelite  until  the  time  of  David.  Even  the  narrative  we 
have  been  considering  ascribes  the  conquest  of  Hebron  not  to 
Joshua,  but  to  Caleb.1  Debir  fell  before  the  prowess  of  Othniel; 

rate,  can  make  no  claim  to  be  history,  because  it  comes  from  a  postexilie 
author,  whose  distance  from  the  events  would  prevent  his  having  any  accu- 
rate knowledge  of  what  took  place.  The  composite  nature  of  the  rest  of  the 
book  is  evident.  Its  oldest  sections  are  found  repeated  in  other  connexions, 
where  they  give  a  very  different  impression  from  the  one  made  by  the  book 
of  Joshua.  Their  true  import  will  be  seen  below. 

1  Compare  Judges,  2  M~n,  3  *,  with  Deut.  7  M. 

f  According  to  Joshua,  1 5  ",  Caleb  drove  out  the  Anakim  from  Hebron, 
hough  Hebron  had  been  captured  and  its  inhabitants  had  been  massacred 
,y  Joshua,  10  "  f- 


|2  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

Gezer  was  Canaanite  until  the  time  of  Solomon.  Beth-shan  wa§ 
Canaanite  in  the  time  of  Saul.  Jabin,  king  of  Hazor,  was  not  a 
contemporary  of  Joshua,  but  of  a  much  later  generation.  Shechem 
;n  the  very  centre  of  Israelite  territory  remained  Canaanite 
through  the  period  of  the  Judges.1 

Now  the  account  of  the  battle  of  Merom  suggests  the  nature  of 
:he  literary  process.  We  compare  the  victory  of  Joshua  there 
A-ith  the  victory  of  Deborah  and  Barak  in  the  Great  Plain,  and 
we  see  striking  points  of  resemblance.  In  both  cases  the  leader 
of  the  enemy  is  Jabin,  king  of  Hazor ;  in  both  cases  the  Canaan- 
ites  have  a  large  force  of  chariots ;  in  both,  the  victory  of  Israel 
is  complete.  The  Waters  of  Merom2  at  which  Joshua  meets 
the  enemy  are  not  yet  identified,  but  the  Great  Plain  in  which 
Barak  defeats  Sisera  is  for  a  chariot  force  the  most  appropri- 
ate ground  in  the  region.  The  conclusion  is  obvious — the  ac- 
count of  Joshua's  battle  is  a  later  reflection  of  the  victory  of 
Barak. 

And  if  one  of  Joshua's  great  battles  is  the  reflection  of  an  event 
that  took  place  later,  the  other  is  probably  like  it.  In  the  life  of 
Saul  we  find  a  conspicuous  event  in  the  defeat  of  the  Philistines. 
This  battle  begins  at  Michmash,  but  during  the  day  the  enemy 
are  driven  westward  beyond  Beth-horon.s  But  Beth-horon  is 
the  scene  of  Joshua's  great  victory.  It  is  easy  to  suppose  that 
tradition  has  here  duplicated  a  single  event,  in  which  case  the  ex- 
ploit of  Saul  is  the  original. 

The  account  of  the  conquest  given  by  the  Book  of  Joshua  fails 
us,  therefore,  when  we  seek  for  facts.  And  the  reason  why  it  fails 
us  is  found  in  the  nature  of  the  book.  The  aim  of  the  author  is 
not  history,  but  edification.  Writing  at  a  comparatively  late  date, 
and  looking  back  upon  a  remote  past,  he  sees  the  conquest  as  a 
signal  act  of  Yahweh's  kindness  to  His  people.  To  glorify  this 
kindness  is,  in  the  author's  mind,  much  more  important  than 

JOn  Gezer,  cf.  I  Kings,  9  I6;  Beth-shan,  I  Sam.  31 10;  Jabin  is  a  Canaan- 
itish  king  in  the  time  of  Deborah,  Judges,  4* ;  Shechem  seems  to  be  Canaan- 
ite under  Abimelech,  Judges  9. 

*The  current  identification  of  this  site  with  the  Huleh  lake  is  without 
any  support  in  the  Biblical  text. 

*i  Sam.  14  Mf;  it  does  not  seem  violent  to  conclude  this  on  the  basis 
«f  Jonathan's  assertion  that  if  the  people  had  been  a  little  more  vigorous, 
»hey  would  have  driven  the  enemy  to  Aijalon,  which  lay  some  distance 
Beth-boron. 


THE  CONQUEST  83 

to  ascertain  what  actually  took  place.  Hence  the  superhu- 
man character  of  the  events.  The  Ark  only  needs  to  approach 
the  Jordan  in  order  that  its  waters  may  flee.  The  stones  of  Gilgal 
are  chosen  and  set  up  by  divine  command  as  memorial  stones. 
Jericho  falls  without  human  effort,  but  not  without  giving  us  an 
edifying  example  of  treachery  in  the  person  of  Rahab.  The 
transgression  of  Achan,  its  disastrous  results,  the  detection  and 
punishment,  are  narrated  at  length  in  order  to  emphasise  the 
taboo  laid  upon  the  Canaanites.  The  sparing  of  the  Gibeonites 
was  a  historical  fact  too  obstinate  to  be  ignored.  The  only  way 
to  account  for  it  was  to  suppose  the  covenant  obtained  by  deceit. 
Even  then  the  author  cannot  wait  for  Solomon  to  reduce  the  un- 
fortunate people  to  slavery,  but  attributes  this  step  to  Joshua.  In 
short,  the  book  is  an  imaginative  picture  of  what  might  have  taken 
place,  had  the  conquest  occupied  a  few  weeks  instead  of  two  cen- 
turies or  more.1 

In  this  state  of  affairs  it  is  especially  fortunate  that  another  ac- 
count of  the  conquest  has  been  preserved  to  us.  This  is  the  nar- 
rative which  we  now  read  in  the  opening  chapter  of  the  Book  of 
Judges.  Editorially  it  has  been  adapted  to  its  present  position  by 
a  superscription  which  dates  the  events  after  the  death  of  Joshua. 
The  incongruity  of  this  with  the  narrative  which  precedes,  is 
evident.  If  the  Canaanites  had  been  exterminated  by  Joshua, 
there  would  have  been  no  need  to  begin  the  conquest  over  again. 
Leaving  out  this  false  date,  we  see  that  this  author  is  giving  an 
account  of  the  conquest  as  it  actually  took  place.  He  knows 
nothing  of  a  leader  named  Joshua — knows  nothing  of  an  Israel 
united  under  a  single  general.  In  fact,  he  goes  back  to  the  so- 
journ of  Israel  in  Kadesh,  and  shows  us  their  attack  upon  the 
country  from  the  south.  Judah  and  Simeon,  we  learn,  took 
possession  of  Bezek,  Hebron,  Debir,  and  Hormah.  Three  of 
these  we  know  to  have  been  in  the  southern  district,  and  the 
capture  of  Hormah  is  in  another  passage  expressly  said  to  have 

1  The  Book  of  Joshua  is  a  part  of  the  Hexateuch  and  is  made  up  from 
the  elements  which  appear  in  the  other  five  books.  But  it  has  very  few 
traces  of  the  earliest  document  (J)  whose  account  of  the  conquest  did  not 
agree  with  the  later  theory  and  was  therefore  left  out.  Fortunately  it  was 
not  wholly  lost,  as  we  shall  see.  The  account  in  Joshua  shows  strong  Deu- 
teronomistic  colouring.  An  author  who  thought  the  forefathers  must  have 
fulfilled  the  later  ideal  by  the  complete  destruction  of  the  Canaanites,  worked 
over  the  account  of  E  with  the  results  now  in  our  hand. 


84  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

been  effected  from  the  desert.1  The  mention  of  the  Kenites 
and  the  Amalekites  in  the  original  text  of  our  passage,  argues  in 
the  same  direction.  Moreover,  had  Judah  invaded  the  country 
from  the  Jordan  valley,  its  march  would  have  been  opposed  by 
the  powerful  fortress  of  Jerusalem  which  confessedly  was  Canaan- 
iie  till  the  time  of  David. 

In  this  passage  we  learn  that  Simeon  was  in  near  alliance  with 
Judah.  We  hear  also  of  Caleb  as  leader  in  the  attack  on  He- 
bron and  Othniel  as  the  conqueror  of  Debir.  In  both  cases 
we  have  reason  to  suspect  that  the  names  really  represent  clans 
which  were  afterward  accounted  subdivisions  of  Judah.  The 
story  of  Achsah  and  her  request  to  Caleb  is  an  setiological  saga, 
designed  to  establish  an  ancient  claim  to  certain  springs  of  water. 
This  shows  that  even  here  we  are  not  on  thoroughly  historical 
ground.  But  the  account  has  a  very  much  better  conception  of 
what  actually  took  place  than  we  find  in  the  Book  of  Joshua. 
Besides  the  exploits  of  Judah  the  only  warlike  event  it  narrates  is 
the  capture  of  Bethel  by  the  tribe  of  Joseph,  and  this  is  accom- 
plished by  the  commonplace  method  of  treachery  and  surprise. 
For  the  rest  the  author  contents  himself  with  enumerating  the 
towns  which  the  Israelites  were  not  able  to  conquer,  but  in  which 
they  obtained  rights  as  clients.  This  illustrates  what  was  said 
above  about  the  method  of  coalition.  When  the  newcomers  be- 
came troublesome  they  obtained  admission  to  certain  territories 
by  treaty.  The  treaty  allowed  them  to  build  quarters  of  their 
own  in  the  cities.  At  first  they  were  not  recognised  as  on  an 
equality  with  the  older  citizens,  but  had  the  inferior  rights  of  "  so- 
journers."  Thus  the  two  peoples  dwelt  side  by  side  in  many  of 
the  cities,  certainly  as  late  as  the  time  of  Solomon,  and  it  is  this 
state  of  affairs*  which  the  author  has  before  his  eyes.  When 
the  Israelites  became  strong  enough,  they  reversed  the  relations, 
reducing  the  Canaanites  to  clientage,  to  forced  labour,  or  even  to 
slavery.  Extermination,  which  was  the  ideal  of  later  times,  was 
not  thought  of  while  the  problem  was  a  practical  one. 

1  Num.  21 1~s,  which  originally  followed  directly  on  the  account  of  the 
spies.  It  is  natural  to  connect  the  city  of  palms  of  Judg.  i 16  with  the  Tamar 
which  we  know  to  have  existed  in  the  South  Country.  The  subject  is  dis- 
cussed by  Steuernagle,  Einwanderung  der  IsraelitiscAen  Stamme  (1901). 

'The  Arab  analogies  are  striking.  Compare,  for  example,  the  state  ot 
things  at  Medina  when  Mohammed  came  thither ;  Wellhausen,  Skissen  und 
Vorarbeiten,  IV  (1889). 


THE   CONQUEST  85 

The  harmony  of  this  representation  (barring  a  little  foreshort 
cning)  with  what  we  have  found  in  the  El  Amarna  tablets  is 
evidence  of  its  truth.  In  the  tablets  we  see  a  strong  wave  of 
immigration  making  itself  felt  in  the  country.  In  the  Hebrew 
account  we  see  how  it  has  distributed  itself,  making  its  way  to 
all  parts  of  the  land.  The  details  of  its  entrance  into  the  differ- 
ent settlements  escape  our  knowledge.  We  have  already  seen 
that  the  episode  of  Dinah  in  Genesis  represents  one  way.  In 
the  book  of  Judges  we  have  another  characteristic  incident  in  the 
campaign  of  the  Danites.  Here  we  find  the  tribe  of  Dan  already 
settled  in  the  country,  but  straitened  by  attack  on  both  sides. 
They  therefore  send  out  spies  to  seek  new  seats.  Any  town  open 
to  attack  is  regarded  as  fair  game.  The  report  of  the  spies  shows 
that  Laish,  at  the  foot  of  Mount  Hermon,  is  a  town  detached  from 
its  natural  allies,  the  Sidonians,  and  at  the  same  time  unsuspicious 
of  attack.  The  whole  fighting  force  of  the  tribe — six  hundred 
men  is  the  number — marches  forth  against  the  city.  They  take 
it  unawares,  storm  the  walls,  put  the  inhabitants  to  the  sword, 
and  divide  the  land  among  themselves.1 

The  account,  as  well  as  the  action  of  the  Danites,  betrays  no 
conscience  concerning  the  transaction.  It  is  assumed  that  a 
state  of  war  exists  everywhere  except  where  it  is  barred  by  kin- 
ship or  by  express  treaty  rights.  The  Canaanites  must  look  out 
for  themselves,  and  if  they  are  caught  unprotected  they  have  only 
themselves  to  blame.  These  are  the  principles  held  by  both  par- 
ties during  the  long  period  of  Israelite  invasion.  Probably  many 
a  town  which  confided  in  its  walls  fell  a  victim  to  its  own  sense 
of  security  and  the  aggressive  alertness  of  the  invaders.  Many, 
however,  rather  than  be  subject  to  unexpected  attack  chose  the 
part  of  discretion,  and  made  some  sort  of  arrangement  with  the 
enemy.  For  the  most  part  a  treaty  made  with  religious  sanc- 
tions was  sufficient  to  secure  a  tolerable  peace,  though  the 
instance  of  Saul  and  the  Gibeonites  shows  that  this  was  not 
always  the  case.  From  the  later  point  of  view  the  state  of 
society  was  unsettled  as  compared  with  the  king's  peace  — 
"  there  was  no  king  in  Israel,  and  every  man  did  that  which 
was  right  in  his  own  eyes." 

1  Judges,  1 8.  The  present  account  is  composite,  but  the  older  portion 
can  be  separated  out  with  some  certainty ;  cf.  Moore's  edition  in  Haupt's 
Sacred  Books  of  the  Old  Testament, 


86  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

When  this  oldest  account  of  the  conquest '  is  carefully  exam- 
ined we  find  that  after  some  centuries  of  struggle  Israel  was  in  full 
possession  of  the  highlands  of  Judah  and  the  highlands  of  Ephraim 
only.  In  the  valleys  the  Canaanites  were  able  to  maintain  them- 
selves "  because  they  had  chariots  of  iron."  North  of  the  Great 
Plain  the  process  of  mingling  had  gone  furthest,  and  we  infer  from 
certain  indications  that  the  Israelites  there  were  in  subjection  to 
the  older  inhabitants.  The  Testament  of  Jacob  *  compares  Is- 
sachar  to  a  pack-animal,  willing  to  serve  so  long  as  it  is  fed. 
And  the  Song  of  Deborah  intimates  that  the  northern  tribes  were 
restrained  by  their  Canaanite  alliances  from  taking  part  with 
their  brethren  against  the  common  enemy.  All  this  time,  how- 
ever, amalgamation  was  going  on,  and  when  a  strong  Israelite 
leader  came  to  the  front  many  Canaanitish  elements  had  already 
become  absorbed  in  Israel. 

'Judges,  i.  That  this  chapter  contains  J's  account  of  the  conquest  was 
pointed  out  by  E.  Meyer  in  the  Zeitschr.  f.  d.  Altttst.  IVissenscA.,  I,  pp. 
1 17-145.  His  results  have  been  accepted  by  all  recent  commentators,  includ- 
ing Nowack  (Handkommentar,  1900). 

*  Gen.  49.  The  ancient  poem  is  a  description  rather  than  a  Testament  or 
Blessing. 


CHAPTER   VI 

THE    HEROES 

FOLLOWING  the  account  of  the  conquest  and  division  of  the 
land  under  Joshua  we  have  in  our  Hebrew  Canon  a  book  which 
we  call  traditionally  Judges.  In  the  form  in  which  we  now  read 
it,  it  is  a  work  of  edification  like  the  others  we  have  considered. 
This  form,  however,  is  reached  by  a  redactional  process,  and  we 
are  able  to  distinguish  between  the  material  which  the  editor 
found  ready  to  hand,  and  the  additions  which  he  made.  The 
substance  of  the  book  is  a  series  of  stories  about  Israel's  deliver- 
ers. They  are  fitted  into  a  framework  which  makes  them  teach 
the  uniform  lesson  that  backsliding  from  Yahweh  is  followed  by 
punishment,  in  the  form  of  war  and  defeat,  while  repentance  is 
rewarded  by  deliverance  and  victory.  The  stories  often  show 
their  reluctance  to  teach  this  lesson  by  the  very  imperfect  manner 
in  which  they  meet  the  views  of  the  compiler.  In  themselves 
they  are  of  the  utmost  value  as  illustrating  the  early  age  of  Israel's 
conflicts.1 

In  this  book  we  find  the  Israelites  settled  in  the  midst  of  the 
Canaanites,  and  in  a  chronic  state  of  warfare.  The  central  high- 
lands (Ephraim)  are  in  their  possession,  but  they  may  be  called  at 
any  time  to  defend  themselves  either  against  the  older  inhabitants 
or  against  fresh  invaders  from  the  desert.  It  is  evident  that  the 
stream  of  migration  is  still  pushing  on  from  the  East.  The  next 
wave  is  as  willing  to  overwhelm  Israel  as  Israel  has  been  willing  to 
submerge  the  Canaanites.  The  strongholds  in  the  plains  are  still 

1  The  structure  of  the  Book  of  Judges  has  been  carefully  investigated  by 
recent  scholars,  including  Budde  (Kichter  und  Samuel,  1890;  Das  Buck 
der  Richter,  1897),  Moore  (International  Critical  Commentary,  1895  ;  The 
Book  of  Judges  in  Haupt's  Sacred  Books  of  the  Old  Testament,  1898;  critical 
edition  of  the  Hebrew  text  in  Haupt's  series,  1900),  and  Nowack  (Richter- 
Ruth  in  the  Handkommentar,  1900).  The  stories  which  form  the  ground- 
work of  the  book  are  sometimes  composite,  and  there  seems  to  have  been 
a  double  redaction.  Th"  artificial  scheme  of  the  final  editor  made  the  num. 
her  of  "Judges  "  twelve.  This  was  secured  by  inserting  the  minor  Judges, 
of  which  tb;  names  only  are  known. 

fc 


88  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

in  possession  of  the  ancient  inhabitants.  Between  the  two  hos- 
tile forces  Israel  is  in  danger  of  being  ground  to  pieces. 

The  danger  of  the  situation  is  increased  by  the  lack  of  unity  in 
Israel  itself.  The  tribes  have  evidently  fought  for  their  own  hand. 
The  vague  sense  of  kindred  which  undoubtedly  exists  is  not  suffi- 
cient to  keep  them  from  attacking  each  other.  It  may  even  be 
doubted  whether  Judah  was  yet  counted  a  part  of  Israel.  In  any 
case,  the  tribes  are  not  able  to  make  common  cause  even  against 
a  powerful  enemy.  The  social  organisation  is  still  that  of  the 
desert.  There  is  no  central  authority,  no  authority  at  all,  prop- 
erly speaking,  even  for  a  single  tribe.  The  Sheikhs  have  a  cer- 
tain influence  due  to  the  purity  of  their  blood,  but  the  influence 
is  never  sufficient  to  coerce  the  freemen  of  the  tribe.  A  man  of 
extraordinary  energy,  or  one  who  shows  especial  prowess  in  war,  is 
doubtless  respected  in  the  community.  The  expression  of  his 
wishes  will  receive  some  attention  because  his  fellow-tribesmen 
desire  to  stand  well  with  him,  or  because  they  fear  his  displeasure. 
He  may  declare  war  or  rather  plan  a  campaign,  but  his  following 
from  the  fighting  men  will  be  volunteers  moved  by  personal  affec- 
tion for  him  or  by  confidence  in  his  ability  to  lead  them  where 
they  will  get  revenge,  or  booty,  or  both.  He  cannot  issue  an 
order  or  levy  contributions. 

In  ordinary  times  such  a  man  is  only  the  older  brother  of  the 
poorest  tribesman.  But  if  he  be  a  man  of  upright  purpose  he  is 
likely  to  increase  his  prestige  by  arbitrating  the  differences  be- 
tween his  brethren.  Where  such  differences  arise  the  man  who  is 
wronged,  or  who  thinks  himself  wronged,  looks  about  for  an  ally 
who  will  help  him  to  his  own.  The  cry  of  the  suitor  is  not  "  hear 
and  decide  my  case  "  but  "  avenge  me  of  mine  adversary."  The 
Sheikh  thus  becomes  the  vindicator  of  the  oppressed,  and  it  is 
in  this  way  that  we  must  interpret  his  title.  The  Judges  whose 
exploits  are  related  for  us  in  the  period  now  under  review  were 
in  no  sense  magistrates.  They  were  men  who  had  vindicated 
the  rights  of  Israel  in  battle.  Later  times,  misled  by  the  double 
meaning  of  the  word  judge,  gave  them  something  of  the  kingly 
position  and  prerogatives.  In  truth  the  time  in  which  they  lived 
was  a  time  when  every  man  did  what  was  right  in  his  own  eyes. 
There  was  neither  law  nor  tribunal  in  our  sense  of  the  word.1 

1  The  Suffetes  of  Carthage  are  evidently  the  Shophetim  of  the  Hebrews, 
showing  that  a  regular  magistracy  may  develop  from  the  extraordinary  insti- 


THE   HEROES  89 

The  position  of  Barak,  Gideon,  and  Jephthah  in  the  community 
is  thus  quite  clear.  They  were  raised  up  to  vindicate  the  rights 
of  their  people  against  the  oppressor.  Another  thing  is  not 
quite  so  clear.  As  has  been  shown  above,  tribal  society  is  based 
upon  the  custom  of  blood  revenge.  When  a  man  is  killed  it  is 
the  duty  of  all  the  clan  to  avenge  his  death.  But  this  does  not 
mean  that  the  murderer  is  to  be  executed.  If  he  can  be  taken, 
well  and  good  j  but  the  blood  he  has  shed  rests  upon  his  whole 
clan.  Justice  is  satisfied  if  any  member  of  the  clan  is  slain  as  an 
equivalent  for  the  murdered  man.  Of  course  there  must  be 
equality — freeman  for  freeman,  client  for  client,  slave  for  slave. 
What  we  do  not  always  make  clear  to  ourselves  is  that  this  gives 
legitimacy  to  private  warfare  in  the  form  which  we  call  assassina- 
tion. That  the  brother  of  a  murdered  man  should  make  his  way 
in  disguise  into  the  camp  of  the  murderer  and  there  strike  down 
the  first  man  he  meets  (though  innocent  of  any  part  in  the 
crime  that  is  to  be  avenged)  strikes  us  with  horror.  It  is  not 
so  in  tribal  society.  The  public  conscience  does  not  condemn 
assassination  where  there  is  blood  between  the  parties — it  rather 
applauds  it.1  The  public  enemy,  of  course,  stands  upon  the 
same  footing  with  the  private  enemy,  for  blood  revenge  must  be 
taken  for  men  slain  in  battle  as  well  as  for  those  slain  in  private 
quarrel.  While  our  own  code  therefore  condemns  Ehud  as  an 
assassin,  we  can  understand  how  the  conscience  of  his  kinsmen 
hailed  him  as  their  deliverer. 

The  first  story  of  deliverance  gives  us  almost  nothing  but  the 
bare  scheme  of  the  editor.  It  relates  that  Israel  forgot  Yahweh 
and  served  the  Baals  and  Asherahs.  Yahweh  was  incensed 
against  them  and  sold  them  into  the  power  of  Chushan-risha- 
thaim,  king  of  Syria,  on  the  Euphrates.  From  this  oppression 
they  were  delivered  by  Othniel  ben  Kenaz,  Caleb's  younger 
brother.  As  we  have  evidence  that  Caleb  is  only  the  eponym 
of  a  clan,  the  flesh  and  blood  character  of  Othniel  is  open  to 
doubt.  Chushan-rishathaim  has  a  name  that  does  not  inspire 
confidence,  and  an  invasion  from  Syria  is  out  of  line  with  all  the 

tution  here  described  for  us.    But  among  the  Hebrews  the  development  was 
arrested  by  the  monarchy. 

1  Mohammed's  unscrupulousness  in  this  matter  is  well  known.  What  is 
to  us  so  revolting  does  not  seem  to  have  offended  his  contemporaries, 
whether  friends  or  foes. 


90  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

other  feuds  of  which  we  read  in  the  period.  It  has  been  acutely 
conjectured  that  for  Syria  (Aram)  we  should  read  Edom,  and  that 
we  have  here  a  trace  of  the  early  struggles  between  Judah  and 
Edom,  of  which  there  must  have  been  many.1  Even  if  this  be 
true  the  absence  of  detail  in  the  narrative  makes  it  valueless  for 
our  purpose,  and  we  must  go  on  to  Ehud,  the  first  real  deliverer. 

The  familiar  story  *  is  to  the  effect  that  Moab  invaded  Israel 
and  made  them  tributary.  The  only  tribe  affected  seems  to  have 
been  Benjamin.  Eglon,  the  Moabite  king,  established  himself  in 
Jericho,  and  hither  the  Benjamites  brought  their  tribute,  which 
was  of  course  paid  in  kind.  One  of  the  sheikhs  responsible  for 
the  payment  was  Ehud,  a  man  left-handed.  In  his  defect  he 
found  his  opportunity.  In  preparing  for  his  deed,  he  concealed 
a  long  dagger  on  his  right  side — where  the  king's  guard,  if  they 
searched  him,  would  not  think  to  look.  Thus  armed,  he  headed 
the  long  train  of  bearers.  The  tribute  being  delivered,  the  train 
retreated  as  far  as  the  images  at  Gilgal — a  well-known  sanctuary. 
Here  Ehud  dismissed  them  and  made  his  way  alone  to  the  palace. 
On  the  pretext  of  discovering  secret  information  he  was  admitted 
to  a  private  audience  in  the  upper  chamber  of  the  palace.  The 
declaration,  "I  have  a  messageof  God  for  thee,  O  King,"  caused 
the  king  to  rise  from  his  seat — the  respect  which  the  oriental 
feels  for  a  man  inspired  sufficiently  accounts  for  the  movement. 
A  single  stab  in  the  abdomen  accomplished  the  purpose  of  the 
Benjamite.  The  security  of  the  attendants  was  such  that  Ehud 
made  his  escape  before  their  suspicions  were  awakened.  Benja- 
min was  aroused  ;  the  Moabite  garrison  was  cut  off.  The  result 
was  deliverance  from  the  oppressor.8 

The  next  event  recounted  for  us  is  of  far-reaching  importance, 
because  it  is  the  first  case  in  which  Israel  overcame  a  regular 

1  The  words  Aram  and  Edom  are  very  similar  in  Hebrew  and  there  are 
some  cases  of  their  confusion  by  the  scribes  in  our  Hebrew  Bibles.  The 
substitution  of  Edom  for  Aram  in  this  passage  (Judges  3 1-11)  was  made  by 
Gratz,  Gesch.  d.  Juden,  I,  p.  412  f.,  and  has  recently  been  taken  up  by 
Winckler,  Geschichte  Israels,  II,  p.  118.  Further  conjectures  are  recorded 
by  Paton,  Early  History  of  Syria,  p.  161  f. 

'Judges  3 '*-»°. 

8  The  apparent  smoothness  of  the  narrative  should  not  blind  us  to  the  diffi- 
culty of  forming  a  clear  conception  of  what  actually  happened.  How  Ehud 
obtained  the  private  audience  will  probably  always  remain  obscure.  I  think 
it  probable  that  in  the  original  narrative  he  was  entertained  by  the  king  as 
his  guest. 


THE   HEROES  9! 

army  in  the  plain.  As  was  to  be  expected,  so  great  an  event  was 
worthily  celebrated  in  the  songs  of  the  people,  and  one  of  the 
most  important  literary  monuments  of  the  Old  Testament  is  the 
Song  of  Deborah  which  is  connected  by  tradition  with  this  vic- 
tory. In  attempting  to  discover  what  took  place  the  Song  is 
our  chief  reliance.  The  prose  narrative  is  later  and  less  original.1 
The  course  of  events  seems  to  be  somewhat  as  follows: 

Israel  was  firmly  settled  in  the  central  highlands  in  the  district 
known  as  Mount  Ephraim.  Between  them  and  Judah,  however,  was 
a  strip  of  Canaanite  territory  dominated  by  the  important  fortress 
of  Jerusalem,  as  yet  unconquered.  West  of  Jerusalem  we  know  that 
at  least  Kirjath  jearim  was  a  member  of  the  Gibeonite  confeder- 
acy. On  this  side,  therefore,  Ephraim  and  Benjamin  were  cut 
off  from  their  natural  allies.  There  was,  however,  no  active  hos- 
tility on  this  side — perhaps  the  Gibeonite  treaty  was  already  in 
force.  The  scene  of  war  was  to  the  north,  where  the  Great  Plain 
(Esdraelon)  was  entirely  in  the  hand  of  the  Canaanites.  Taanach 
and  Megiddo  in  the  edge  of  the  Plain  are  known  to  have  been 
Canaanite  strongholds.  Such  also  was  Beth-shan  at  the  opening 
of  the  side  valley  of  Jezreel  into  the  Jordan  valley.  Issachar  may 
have  held  the  ridge  of  Gilboa,  while  Zebulun  and  Naphtali  had 
wedged  themselves  among  the  earlier  inhabitants  on  the  hills  to 
the  north  of  the  Great  Plain.  But  the  first  impulse  which  had 
brought  them  into  the  country  had  spent  itself.  Under  the  lead 
of  an  energetic  prince  named  Sisera,  the  Canaanites  had  pulled 
themselves  together,  and  the  Israelites  were  crowded  to  the  wall. 
Some  of  them  were  reduced  to  serfdom.  The  caravan  roads 
were  insecure,  being  at  the  mercy  of  the  tyrant's  soldiers.  Traffic 
almost  ceased,  the  cultivated  country  was  plundered,  the  fighting 
men  were  disarmed,  so  that  no  spear  or  shield  was  seen  among  the 
forty  thousand  of  Israel.1 

Sisera' s  capital  seems  to  have  been  to  the  north  of  the  Great 
Plain  and  not  far  distant  from  it.  Here  he  mustered  his  army 

1  It  is  now  generally  recognised  that  the  prose  narrative  (Judg.  4)  is 
later  than  the  poem  which  follows.  The  former  is,  moreover,  composite, 
mingling  the  account  of  a  war  with  Jabin  with  that  of  the  war  with  Sisera. 

1  The  oppression  is  said  to  have  taken  place  in  the  days  of  Shamgar  ben 
Anath  (Judges  5*).  This  Shamgar  has  been  conjectured  to  be  the  father  of 
Sfsera,  and  the  non-Semitic  character  of  the  name  indicates  a  foreign,  per- 
haps  a  Hittite,  invasion;  so  Moore,  Journal  of  the  Am.  Oriental  Soc.  XIX, 
11(1898),  p.  159  f. 


92  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

for  a  great  raid  which  was  designed  to  break  the  remaining 
power  of  Israel.  His  force  of  chariots  was  so  considerable  that 
resistance  seemed  to  be  vain.  But  Yahweh  is  not  always  on 
the  side  of  the  heaviest  artillery.  The  leading  spirit  in  Israel  was 
a  woman  named  Deborah,  who  is  described  as  a  prophetess.  In 
this  case,  as  in  so  many  others,  a  religious  leader  alone  could 
infuse  faith  and  courage  into  the  people.  The  prose  narrative 
makes  her  judge  Israel — doubtless  by  oracular  revelation  of  the 
divine  will.  We  saw  in  the  case  of  Moses  that  a  prophet  nat- 
urally became  the  arbiter  of  disputes  among  the  people.  The 
oldest  law  book  expressly  provides  that  certain  cases  shall  be 
brought  to  God  for  decision.  Deborah,  seated  under  one  of  the 
sacred  trees,  of  which  the  country  was  full,  gave  responses  to  those 
who  came  to  inquire  concerning  the  will  of  God.  Doubtless 
many  such  inspired  women  attained  to  public  reputation  during 
the  history  of  Israel.  But  not  many  of  them  used  their  influence 
to  rouse  patriotic  enthusiasm  in  a  time  of  danger. 

All  that  we  know  is  that  this  woman  gave  a  message  of  God  to 
Barak,  the  Sheikh  of  Naphtali,  commanding  him  to  bring  what 
forces  he  could  muster  to  Mount  Tabor.  Probably  her  influence 
was  exerted  on  the  chiefs  of  the  other  tribes  at  the  same  time,  urg- 
ing them  to  make  common  cause  against  the  common  enemy.  The 
locality  was  favourable  for  a  rally  of  the  tribes.  On  the  wooded 
slopes  the  warriors  would  be  out  of  the  reach  of  the  dreaded 
chariots;  at  the  same  time  they  would  be  within  striking  distance 
should  the  enemy  expose  himself  on  the  march.  According  to 
tradition  ten  thousand  out  of  Israel's  forty  thousand  able-bodied 
men  responded  to  the  summons.  In  ordinary  circumstances,  ill 
armed  as  they  were,  they  could  not  cope  with  the  force  under 
Sisera's  command.  The  chariots  were  superior  so  long  as  they 
had  ground  on  which  to  manoeuvre. 

But  the  circumstances  soon  became  extraordinary.  Under  a 
heavy  rainfall  the  alluvial  plain  becomes  a  morass,  in  which 
heavy  troops  find  it  impossible  to  move.1  The  hopes  of  Israel  in 
the  God  of  battle  and  of  the  storm  were  not  disappointed.  Yah- 
weh came  from  Sinai ;  the  mountains  shook,  the  earth  trembled, 
the  clouds  poured  down  water ;  the  stars  from  their  courses 
fought  against  Sisera.  A  cloud-burst  inundated  the  plain  and 
made  it  a  sea  of  mire.  The  chariots  sank  in  the  bog,  and  the 
1  So  the  Turkish  cavalry  found  to  their  cost  some  millenniums  later. 


THE   HEROES  93 

frantic  efforts  of  horses  and  drivers  produced  a  panic  which  soon 
became  a  rout.  The  insignificant  stream  of  Kishon  became  a 
river  choked  with  chariots,  horses,  and  the  dead  bodies  of  the 
Canaanites.  The  light-armed  Israelites,  as  we  may  suppose,  hung 
on  the  skirts  of  the  disheartened  and  flying  foe.  If  only  the  peo- 
ple of  Meroz — an  Israelite  village  that  commanded  the  road  of 
the  fugitives — had  been  true  to  their  opportunity  the  whole  force 
of  the  enemy  might  have  been  annihilated. 

As  it  was,  the  victory  was  a  signal  one,  and  it  was  made  more 
complete  by  the  death  of  the  hated  Sisera.  He  indeed  did  not 
perish  in  the  melee.  Abandoning  his  chariot  he  succeeded  in 
making  his  way  on  foot  some  distance  toward  his  capital. 
Wearied  and  footsore  he  stopped  at  aBedawin  encampment  and 
asked  for  refreshment.  The  tent-dwellers  were  Kenites,  ancient 
friends  of  Israel  who  had  come  with  them  into  the  Promised 
Land,  but  who  had  not  adopted  the  agricultural  life.  Gipsy- 
like  they  still  kept  up  the  nomad  life,  camping  wherever  they 
could  find  pasture.  Jael,  the  wife  of  the  Sheikh,  was  the  only  one 
at  home.  Though  her  people  were  not  involved  in  the  struggle, 
their  sympathies  were  with  Israel.  When  the  fugitive  king  ap- 
peared, she  poured  him  out  a  bountiful  bowl  of  sour  milk,  the 
favourite  beverage  of  the  Bedawy.  But  before  he  had  swallowed 
a  mouthful  she  struck  him  with  the  mallet — the  familiar  tool  used 
by  the  nomad  to  drive  his  tent-pins.  The  blow  crushed  his 
temple  and  he  fell  dead  at  her  feet. 

Technically,  the  unfortunate  man  was  not  yet  protected  by  the 
law  of  hospitality,  since  he  had  not  yet  drunk  of  the  offered  bev- 
erage. The  reader  will  recall  that  Sir  Walter  Scott  makes  Sala- 
din  careful  to  strike  down  the  Master  of  the  Templars  before  he 
has  partaken  of  the  cup  proffered  the  guest.  So  far  as  the  poem 
is  taken  as  authority,  Jael  cannot  be  charged  with  treachery. 
The  author  of  the  prose  narrative  has  brought  gratuitous  re- 
proach upon  her  by  expanding  the  account.1 

It  is  not  difficult  in  reading  this  ancient  song  to  discover 
Israel  in  the  making.  There  is  as  yet  no  nation,  only  a  loose 
agglomeration  of  clans.  They  are  not  yet  the  twelve  tribes  of 

1  He  makes  Jael  go  out  to  meet  Sisera  and  invite  him  to  the  tent  She 
brings  him  milk,  which  he  drinks  and  is  thereby  fully  assured  of  safety. 
She  then  steals  upon  him  when  asleep  and  drives  the  tent-pin  through  hit 
head.  The  poem  knows  nothing  of  all  this. 


94  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

later  tradition.  Machir  and  Gilead  are  in  the  same  class  with 
Zebulun  and  Reuben.  When  the  scheme  of  twelve  tribes  took 
shape,  Machir  became  simply  a  subdivision  of  Manasseh.  While 
the  poet  is  conscious  that  all  the  tribes  he  names  are  of  the  same 
blood,  he  shows  by  his  taunts  how  little  the  tribes  themselves  rec- 
ognised the  claims  of  kinship.  The  sons  of  Reuben  debated  the 
matter  of  joining  their  brethren.  But  remote  from  the  scene  of 
the  war,  they  came  to  no  decision — which  was  equivalent  to  an 
adverse  decision.  Gilead,  the  other  transjordanic  tribe,  shared 
the  inaction  of  Reuben.  Dan  and  Asher,  on  the  other  hand, 
were  compromised  with  the  Canaanites,  for  both  of  them  had  an 
interest  in  the  maritime  trade  :  "  Dan  goes  abroad  in  ships,  and 
Asher  tarries  on  the  shore,  sitting  still  at  the  landing-places." 

One  of  the  most  remarkable  things  about  the  ode  is  its  silence 
concerning  Judah,  Simeon,  and  Levi.  The  Testament  of  Jacob 
contains  a  hint  that  Simeon  and  Levi  had  been  overtaken  by 
some  disaster,  brought  upon  them  by  their  own  recklessness,  and 
the  story  of  Dinah  indicates  that  they  had  been  foremost  in  hos- 
tility to  the  Canaanites.  We  can  only  conclude  that  they 
had  been  practically  wiped  out  not  long  before  the  date 
of  our  story.  Silence  with  reference  to  Judah,  however,  must 
be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  what  was  said  above.  Mere 
remoteness  from  the  scene  of  conflict  was  scarcely  enough  to 
excuse  his  absence.  Nor  does  the  fact  that  Canaanite  territory 
intervened  between  him  and  his  brothers  justify  inaction.  The 
only  hypothesis  which  fits  the  case  is  that  Judah  was  not  of  full 
Israelitish  blood.  The  tribe  was  made  up  partly  of  Edomite 
clans,  partly  of  Canaanitish  elements,  as  we  see  from  the  story  of 
Tamar.  It  was  now  in  the  making,  and  had  not  coherence 
enough  to  be  counted  a  tribe.  The  Joseph  clans  were  not  yet 
ready  to  recognise  the  kinship ;  in  fact,  the  secret  of  later  dis- 
union is  here  laid  bare. 

At  this  time  the  poet  estimates  Israel's  fighting  men  to  be  forty 
thousand  in  number.  The  modesty  of  this  estimate  compared 
with  the  extravagance  of  many  numerical  data  in  the  Hebrew 
historical  books  makes  a  favourable  impression. 

The  strong  religious  spirit  which  animates  the  poem  shows  the 
exaltation  at  the  time  of  oppression  and  conflict.  Yahweh  is  a 
God  of  war.  Though  His  home  is  in  the  southern  desert,  He 
sees  the  oppression  of  His  people  and  marches  to  their  relief.  He 


THE   HEROES  95 

shows  Himself  in  the  storm,  and  under  His  leadership  heavenly 
powers  attack  the  foe.  The  enemies  of  Israel  are  Yahweh's 
enemies.  The  curse  is  pronounced  upon  Meroz  because  its 
people  did  not  take  the  side  of  Yahweh.  The  destruction  of 
Sisera  is  an  omen  for  the  future,  when  the  enemies  of  Yahweh  and 
of  Israel  shall  all  likewise  perish. 

The  signal  deliverance  wrought  under  Deborah's  lead  made 
less  impression  upon  succeeding  generations  than  was  made  by 
the  incident  which  comes  next  in  the  narrative.  So  we  may 
judge  from  the  complicated  literary  process  which  has  left  its 
marks  upon  the  story  of  Gideon.  Scarcely  anywhere  are  the  du- 
plications of  the  present  text  so  perplexing,  and  nowhere  is  it 
more  necessary  to  get  at  the  earliest  form  of  the  narrative  in  or- 
der to  make  it  of  historical  use.1 

The  scene  is  laid  in  Mount  Ephraim,  where  Gideon  was  Sheikh 
of  a  clan  called  Abiezer,  with  his  home  at  Ophrah.  The  town 
has  not  been  certainly  identified,  but  was  not  far  from  Shechem, 
and  was  near  the  edge  of  the  Jordan  Valley.*  At  the  time  of 
the  story  Israel,  now  thoroughly  agricultural,  is  distressed  by  Be- 
dawin  invaders  who  are  called  Midianites.  They  and  their 
cattle,  after  their  wont,  destroyed  the  face  of  the  country  like 
the  proverbial  swarm  of  locusts.  The  hero  of  the  story  having 
rescued  a  few  stalks  of  wheat,  was  obliged  to  beat  them  out  in 
the  wine-press  under  the  cover  afforded  by  the  vineyard.  Medi- 
tating upon  the  distress  of  Israel,  he  heard  a  divine  voice  en- 
couraging him  to  take  the  part  of  deliverer.  An  altar  erected 
on  the  spot  commemorated  the  theophany  for  many  years  after. 

1  The  marks  of  a  double  narrative  and  of  more  than  one  redaction  are 
brought  out  by  Prof.  Moore's  editions  in  colours  and  by  Nowack's  transla- 
tion, printed  in  different  kinds  of  type.  The  two  names  of  the  hero  (Jerub- 
baal  and  Gideon)  clearly  show  a  double  source.  The  double  account  of  his  call 
is  easily  distinguished.  In  one  document  (Judg.  6  n-14)  the  Angel  of  Yahweh 
appears  to  him,  giving  unmistakable  proofs  of  his  identity.  In  the  other, 
Gideon  receives  the  divine  message  in  a  dream  of  the  night,  and  tests  its 
origin  by  the  fleece  which  is  alternately  left  dry  or  soaked  by  the  night 
mist  according  to  his  prayer  (6*-40).  A  later  addition  is  the  attempt  to  ac- 
count for  the  name  Jerubbaal.  Originally  expressing  the  faith  that  The- 
Lord-Fights  for  Israel,  it  was  no  longer  understood,  and  was  made  to  mean 
•fff-fights-against-Baal. 

1  That  it  was  also  near  the  Great  Plain  is  not  so  certain,  as  the  data 
which  arc  usually  interpreted  in  favour  of  such  a  location  occur  in  later  por- 
tions of  the  narrative,  or  are  themselves  uncertain. 


96  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

The  distress  of  Israel  was  not,  however,  the  moving  cause  in 
Gideon's  exploit.  The  invasion  had  come  nearer  to  him  per- 
sonally, in  that  the  enemy  had  murdered  many  of  his  immediate 
family.  Moved  by  personal  grief  and  the  sacred  duty  of  blood- 
revenge,  he  was  possessed  by  the  spirit  of  Yahvveh,  and  called 
the  clan  to  war.  Three  hundred  of  the  clansmen  responded.  A 
sudden  night -attack  threw  the  undisciplined  host  of  Midian  into 
confusion,  and  they  fled  toward  the  desert  beyond  Jordan.  Gid- 
eon and  his  men  followed  them  to  the  wilderness  and  inflicted  a 
second  defeat  upon  them,  bringing  the  chiefs  back  to  Ophrah. 
Here,  when  questioned  as  to  the  murders,  the  prisoners  boasted 
of  their  deed,  and  were  put  to  death  by  Gideon's  own  hand.1 
It  is  interesting  to  see  the  veteran  warrior  encourage  his  youthful 
son  to  flesh  his  sword  upon  these  enemies  of  the  clan. 

The  lack  of  unity  in  Israel  is  brought  out  in  this  narrative  by 
the  behaviour  of  Succoth  and  Penuel.  These  were  two  ancient 
Israelitish  towns,  yet  both  of  them  refused  aid  and  comfort  to 
Gideon's  exhausted  men.  He,  on  his  part,  did  not  hesitate  to 
take  the  offensive  against  them  for  their  unbrotherly  conduct. 
According  to  another  document,  Ephraim  took  offence  at  not 
having  been  invited  to  the  war — Gideon,  it  should  be  noted, 
belonged  to  Manasseh.  A  soft  answer  from  him  turned  away 
their  wrath,  but  the  incident  shows  the  lack  of  common  interest 
in  the  tribes. 

The  piety  of  Gideon  is  shown  by  his  consecration  of  the  spoils 
of  war.  The  amulets  taken  from  the  enemy  were  made  into  an 
ephod,  by  which  we  must  understand  an  image  of  Yahweh.  The 
offence  taken  at  the  idol  by  a  later  writer  must  not  make  us 
doubt  the  hero's  good  faith  in  the  matter.* 

Dignity  and  authority  tend  to  become  hereditary.  It  is  not 
surprising  that  the  sons  of  Gideon  should  suppose  themselves  en- 
titled to  some  prerogatives  on  account  of  their  father's  heroism. 

1  The  account  of  the  immense  force  (thirty-two  thousand  men)  collected 
by  Gideon  only  to  be  dismissed  (except  three  hundred),  is  a  late  embellish- 
ment of  the  story.  The  author  could  conceive  how  Yahweh  could  save  by 
a  small  force,  but  could  not  suppose  only  three  hundred  men  to  respond  to 
the  call  of  a  divinely  appointed  leader. 

*  That  the  ephod  was  an  object  of  worship  was  quite  plain  to  the  author 
of  Judg.  8",  who  speaks  of  the  worship  paid  it  in  terms  more  forcible  than 
polite.  The  innocence  of  such  a  symbol  of  Yahweh  in  this  period  is  made 
clear  by  the  language  of  I?1"4. 


THE  HEROES  97 

The  Canaanitish  cities,  as  we  know,  were  accustomed  to  the  rule 
of  tyrants,  either  of  their  own  blood,  or  forced  upon  them  by  the 
crown  of  Egypt.  In  the  absence  of  a  law  of  primogeniture,  the 
most  ambitious  or  the  least  scrupulous  son  of  a  chief  secures  him- 
self in  the  reversion  by  the  murder  of  his  brothers.  Gideon,  to 
be  sure,  was  not  a  monarch.  But  such  power  as  he  had  seemed 
to  one  of  his  sons  an  object  of  desire.  So  the  family  tragedy  that 
has  so  often  been  enacted  in  the  East  on  the  death  of  a  monarch 
was  played  on  the  village  stage  of  Ophrah. 

Gideon  was  blessed  with  numerous  children.  Those  at  Ophrah 
were  of  pure  Israelite  blood.  But  as  the  connubium  with  the 
Canaanites  was  established,  he  had  a  wife  of  that  stock  who 
chose — according  to  a  well-known  form  of  Semitic  marriage— 
to  remain  with  her  own  kin  at  Shechem.1  Her  son  was  there- 
fore recognised  as  belonging  to  their  blood.  At  the  same  time 
he  was  a  recognised  son  of  Gideon,  and  by  the  patriarchal  system 
in  force  in  Israel  he  had  a  claim  upon  the  inheritance.  Plausi- 
bly representing  to  the  Shechemites  the  advantage  his  governor- 
ship would  give  his  kindred,  this  man,  Abimelech  by  name,  hired 
a  band  of  bravos  and  cut  off  the  Israelite  heirs  of  Gideon,  except 
one  lad  who  made  his  escape. 

Abimelech  therefore  became  Emir  of  the  district.  With  his 
band  of  mercenaries  he  was  probably  able  to  make  his  authority 
complete.  Our  narrative  says  in  so  many  words  that  the  burgh- 
ers of  Shechem  and  Beth-millo  made  him  king  at  the  sacred  tree 
in  Shechem.  Some  sort  of  religious  sanction  was  thus  given 
his  usurpation.  The  caustic  fable  of  Jotham,  delivered  from  the 
overhanging  mountain,  taught  the  people  that  the  most  worthless 
of  men  are  the  ones  most  likely  to  be  intrusted  with  high  office. 
But  it  clearly  implies  the  kingship  of  Abimelech. 

The  reign,  whatever  its  nature,  was  short.  According  to  one 
account  it  was  only  three  years  after  Abimelech's  installation  that 
God  sent  an  evil  spirit  between  him  and  his  subjects.  They  as- 
serted their  ancient  freedom  and  showed  their  estimate  of  the 
king's  peace  by  plundering  the  caravans  which  traversed  the 
country.  This,  of  course,  moved  the  king  to  take  active  mea- 
sures against  the  unruly.  The  other  account  sets  forth  the  revolt 
in  somewhat  different  terms.  One  Gaal,  Sheikh  of  a  small  clan 

1  On  the  Sadiqa  marriage,  which  is  exemplified  in  the  case  of  Samson 
and  elsewhere,  cf.  W.  R.  Smith,  Kinship  and  Marriage,  Ch.  3. 


98  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

of  fighting  men,  took  up  his  residence  in  Shechem.  With  the 
hope  of  supplanting  Abimelech,  he  began  to  stir  up  dissatis- 
faction. It  was  the  time  of  the  vintage,  and  the  temper  of 
the  people — always  boisterous  at  this  season — showed  itself  in 
seditious  speeches,  in  which  Gaal  took  the  lead.  Abimelech's 
Canaanitish  blood  had  advanced  him  to  his  position ;  now  his 
Israelitish  blood  makes  him  the  subject  of  abuse.  Gaal  points 
out  that  Abimelech  and  his  lieutenant  Zebul  are  of  a  race  once 
subject  to  the  Shechemites  as  slaves.  If  he  (Gaal)  were  only  at 
the  head  of  affairs,  he  would  openly  defy  Abimelech,  and  they 
would  try  conclusions  on  the  field  of  battle.  Abimelech  was 
not  in  Shechem  at  the  time,1  but  the  seditious  words  were  re- 
ported to  him  by  his  deputy,  and  he  marched  promptly  against 
the  city  with  his  mercenaries.  Gaal,  under  the  taunts  of  Zebul, 
the  deputy,  went  forth  before  the  eyes  of  the  citizens  to  make 
his  threats  good.  His  defeat  destroyed  what  prestige  he  had, 
and  Zebul  was  able  to  banish  him  and  the  remnant  of  his  troops 
from  the  city. 

It  is  perhaps  hazardous  to  combine  with  this  account  of  the 
suppression  of  the  revolt  the  story  which  follows,  of  a  re- 
newed attack  upon  the  city.  We  may  remember  that  the  re- 
volt was  not  confined  to  Gaal  and  his  men,  but  that  the 
Shechemites  had  broken  the  king's  peace  by  plundering  the 
caravans — thus  making  clear  to  him  that  they  were  resum- 
ing their  old  independence.  To  suppress  this  lawlessness, 
Abimelech  could  find  no  better  way  than  to  turn  his  soldiers 
loose  upon  the  citizens  when  they  came  out  to  their  fields. 
With  one  company  he  seized  the  unguarded  gates  while  the 
rest  were  cutting  down  the  townspeople.  The  sack  of  the 
city  followed.  A  neighbouring  stronghold  bore  the  name 
Tower  of  Shechem,  and  the  people,  crowding  into  it,  sought 
safety  from  attack,  but  the  tower  was  burnt  over  their  heads  and 
all  of  them  perished.1  At  Thebez,  also,  one  of  the  towns  which 
sympathised  in  the  revolt,  an  attempt  was  made  to  burn  the 
tower  in  which  the  people  had  taken  refuge.  But  here  a  woman 

1  He  had  taken  up  his  abode  in  an  otherwise  unknown  Arumah  (Judg. 
941) — the  name  should  also  be  restored  in  v.31  (Moore). 

1  The  location  of  this  Tower  of  Shechem  is  unknown.  It  was  apparently 
a  separate  place — not  the  citadel  of  Shechem  itself.  Thebez  has  been  iden- 
tified in  Tubaz,  eight  miles  northeast  of  Shechem. 


THE   HEROES  99 

threw  a  millstone  from  the  roof  and  struck  the  incautious  general 
to  the  ground.  To  avoid  the  ignominy  of  death  at  the  hand  of  a 
woman  he  ordered  his  squire  to  thrust  him  through.  Thus  per- 
ished an  energetic  but  unscrupulous  ruler.  The  piety  of  the  Bib- 
lical author  sees  in  his  death  the  divine  vengeance  upon  fratricide. 

The  attention  we  have  given  this  episode  is  justified  by  the 
light  it  throws  upon  the  times.  We  see  Israelites  and  Canaanites 
settled  in  immediate  proximity,  both  being  cultivators  of  the 
soil.  The  Israelites  bad  earlier  been  subject  to  the  Canaanites, 
but,  owing  to  Gideon's  generalship,  the  relations  were  now  re- 
versed. The  parties  lived  together  and  intermarried,  perhaps 
worshipped  the  same  Baal ;  but  the  race  feeling  was  strong. 
Abimelech,  though  he  raised  himself  to  power  by  the  aid  of 
the  Canaanites,  was  supported  mainly  by  the  Israelites.  His  en- 
deavour to  establish  a  settled  government  was  wrecked  partly  by 
race  jealousies,  partly  by  the  tribal  sense  of  freedom  which  does 
not  readily  tolerate  any  authority.  In  the  conflict  the  city  of 
Shechem  was  destroyed.  That  Israel  also  suffered  severely  can 
hardly  be  doubted.1 

The  part  which  an  energetic  captain  can  play  in  a  state  of 
society  such  as  we  are  now  considering,  is  illustrated  by  Gaal, 
the  leader  of  the  revolt  against  Abimelech.  A  more  striking  in- 
stance is  that  of  Jephthah,  to  whom  we  come  next.1  What  we 
learn  about  him  is  that  he  was  an  outlaw  who  gathered  about 
him  a  band  of  kindred  spirits  who  acknowledged  him  as  captain. 
Sparing  his  own  people,  he  fixed  his  haunts  in  the  region  of 
Bashan.  Hence  he  was  recalled  by  the  necessities  of  his  kindred. 
Chronically  at  war  with  their  neighbours,  these  were  now  deeply 
involved  with  the  powerful  tribe  of  Ammon.  In  their  extremity, 
the  Sheikhs  of  Gilead  bethought  themselves  of  their  exiled  brother. 
A  formal  proposition  was  made  to  Jephthah,  and  accepted  by  him, 
to  the  effect  that  he  should  become  their  ruler,  if  only  he  would 

1  A  variant  tradition  of  the  destruction  of  Shechem  is  contained  in  the  le- 
gend of  Dinah.  With  the  knowledge  at  our  command,  we  cannot  trace  that 
story  to  this  event.  The  possibility  that  this  is  its  origin  may,  however,  be 
kept  in  mind. 

*  As  already  intimated,  the  minor  judges  cannot  be  taken  as  nistonca/  char- 
acters. For  this  reason  we  may  pass  over  Tola  and  Jair,  who  are  mentioned 
between  Abimelech  and  Jephthah.  The  names,  in  fact,  seem  to  be  clan  names. 
The  reader,  however,  will  be  interested  in  Prof.  Cheyne's  attempt  to  transfer 
ft  part  of  Jephthah's  story  to  Jair,  Encyc.  Biblica*  s.v.  "  Jephthah." 


IOO  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

defeat  the  oppressor — in  the  mind  of  the  writer,  at  least,  the  suc- 
cessful warrior  attains  to  something  like  kingly  power.  The 
agreement  was  solemnly  ratified  in  the  sanctuary  at  Mizpah,  and 
here  also  Jephthah  made  the  vow,  to  us  so  repugnant,  that  if 
successful  he  would  sacrifice  to  Yahweh  the  first  person  that 
should  come  out  of  the  doors  of  his  house  to  meet  his  victorious 
return.  That  he  intended  a  human  being  to  be  the  victim  is 
evident  from  the  form  of  the  vow.  If  evidence  were  lacking 
that  human  sacrifice  was  known  to  the  religion  of  Israel,  we 
should  find  it  here.  Nor  does  the  writer  of  the  account  revolt 
from  the  deed — to  him  its  pathos  arises  simply  from  the  fact 
that  a  young  woman  perishes  in  her  virginity,  and  thus  the  stock 
of  Jephthah  is  cut  off.  The  view  of  the  time  was,  no  doubt, 
that  the  vow  was  effective  in  securing  the  help  of  Yahweh,  just 
as  at  a  later  time  Chemosh  was  roused  from  his  lethargy  by  a 
similar  sacrifice  on  the  part  of  the  king  of  Moab.1 

To  this  pathetic  incident  and  its  yearly  commemoration,  we 
owe  the  preservation  of  the  history,  which  in  itself  has  no 
great  importance.  Jephthah's  dynasty  ended  with  himself. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  his  rule  (if  such  we  call  it)  extended 
beyond  the  region  of  Gilead.  In  any  case  it  had  no  influence 
on  the  main  stream  of  Israel's  history.  One  thing  further  is 
noticeable  in  connexion  with  it — the  turbulence  of  Ephraim, 
which  tribe  took  offence  at  not  having  been  called  to  the  war. 
Jephthah  had  not  the  diplomatic  temper  of  Gideon.  The  result 
was  a  fierce  conflict  between  the  two  tribes,  in  which  Ephraim  was 
worsted.  To  the  incident  our  language  owes  the  word  Shibbo- 
leth— a  monument  of  the  test  applied  by  the  Gileadites  to  their 
brethren.  Inability  to  pronounce  according  to  the  prevailing 
mode  has  often  been  inconvenient,  seldom  fatal  as  here,  though 
there  are  some  parallel  instances  known  to  history.1 

1  2  Kings  3  * f  — the  sacrifice  brings  great  ivrath  upon  Israel.  Had  there 
been  no  human  sacrifices  in  Israel,  the  protest  embodied  in  the  account  of 
Abraham's  offering  Isaac  would  have  been  needless.  A  somewhat  extended 
discussion  of  the  subject  may  be  found  in  Kamphausen's  Verhaltniss  des 
Menschenopfers  zur  hraelitischen  Religion  (1896).  Recent  excavators  in 
Palestine  claim  to  have  found  evidence  of  human  sacrifice  at  Gezer— whether 
in  the  pre-Israelite  period  is  not  yet  certain ;  Palestine  Exploration  Fund, 
Quarterly  Statement,  January,  1003,  p.  ig. 

1  To  the  instances  given  by  Moore  (Commentary,  p.  309)  may  be  added 
one  by  Doughty,  Arabia  Deserta,  I,  p.  155.  Tne  smahness  of  the  scalo 


THE   HEROES  IOf 

No  more  extraordinary  champion  of  the  cause  of  religion  has 
arisen  in  the  whole  course  of  history  than  the  one  who  next 
claims  our  attention  among  the  judges  of  Israel — Samson  the  son 
of  Manoah.  The  piety  of  later  times  made  him,  like  Isaac  or 
Samuel,  a  special  gift  to  a  mother  long  disappointed  in  her  hope 
for  children,  and  described  the  theophany  which  gave  promise 
of  his  greatness.  But  even  the  faith  of  Judaism  must  have  found 
it  difficult  to  discover  Israel's  deliverer  in  this  boisterous  knight. 
Samson  was  anything  but  a  theocratic  ruler  of  God's  people.  He 
was  not  even  a  deliverer  after  the  pattern  of  Gideon  or  Jephthah. 
It  is  easy  to  suppose  that  the  piety  of  Gideon  or  Jephthah, 
different  as  it  was  from  the  piety  of  later  times,  exerted  a  dis- 
tinct influence  in  favour  of  Israel's  loyalty  to  Yahweh.  But 
we  can  find  no  trace  of  such  influence  exerted  by  Samson.  He 
is  simply  a  hero  of  folklore — a  champion  possessed  of  great  physi- 
cal strength,  who  delights  in  inflicting  mischief  upon  the  Philis- 
tines ;  fitful  in  his  rage,  and  fitful  also  in  his  good  nature ;  led 
by  his  sensuality  into  dangerous  situations  from  which  he  frees 
himself  by  unexpected  feats ;  falling  a  victim  to  a  designing 
woman,  but  ending  his  life  with  dignity  in  a  supreme  effort  for 
revenge. 

The  discrepancy  between  the  story  and  its  setting  is  strong 
evidence  for  its  truthfulness.  Certainly  the  exploits  could  not 
have  been  invented  by  the  authors  who  have  handed  the  narra- 
tive down  to  us,  because  the  story  so  poorly  teaches  the  lesson 
these  authors  have  at  heart.  Barring  a  little  natural  exaggeration 
therefore,  we  accept  the  main  incidents  as  historical,  not  mythi- 
cal, only  slightly  legendary.  Their  value  to  us  is  very  great 
because  of  the  light  which  they  throw  upon  the  life  of  the  time. 
For  the  advancement  of  Israel's  nationality  they  may  be  said  to 
have  no  value  at  all. 

The  scene  of  this  part  of  the  history  is  on  the  western  edge  of 
the  hill  country.  Here  the  tribe  of  Dan  had  pushed  forward  in 
the  front  of  the  Israelite  invasion.  But  they  were  met  by  a 

on  which  this  history  is  enacted  may  be  seen  when  we  notice  that  Ammdn 
(Rahhath  Ammon)  is  not  more  than  twenty  miles  in  a  straight  line  from 
the  centre  of  Gilead.  The  long  argument  of  Jephthah  about  Israel's  title  to 
Gilead,  (Judg.  1 1 1M*)  is  not  by  the  author  of  the  main  history.  The 
editor  in  adapting  it  to  its  present  position,  has  not  observed  the  fact  that 
it  originally  referred  to  a  controversy  with  Moab  instead  of  Ammon. 


IO2  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

counter-invasion  which  had  already  taken  possession  of  the  mari- 
time plain.  The  Philistines  were  pirate  bands  who  had  ravaged 
the  coasts  of  Palestine  and  given  much  trouble  to  the  Egyptian 
territories  for  some  time.  Like  the  Northmen  of  our  history, 
they  overran  the  weaker  civilisation  of  the  coast  districts,  settled 
among  the  older  inhabitants,  and  gradually  became  amalgamated 
with  them.  In  the  fertile  grain  lands  of  the  Shephela  they  had 
made  themselves  masters,  and  now  formed  a  confederacy  of  five 
bands,  under  five  chiefs  or  princes.  At  the  time  we  are  consid- 
ering, they  had  (like  the  Hebrews)  adopted  the  language  of 
Canaan.1  How  far  customs  and  religion  had  been  assimilated, 
cannot  clearly  be  made  out;  but  they  alone,  among  the  inhab- 
itants of  Canaan,  are  stigmatised  as  uncircumcised.  After  becom- 
ing masters  of  the  maritime  plain  they  had  attacked  the  high- 
lands, and  had  made  the  nearer  tribes  of  Israel  tributaries. 
Among  these  the  Danites  were  their  nearest  neighbours.  In  the 
story  of  Samson  we  see  that  the  relations  between  the  two  peo- 
ples were  friendly  enough.  The  connubium  is  recognised — 
Manoah's  protest  against  Samson's  Philistine  wife  is  probably  the 
reflection  of  later  ideas.  The  Israelites  seem  to  have  accepted 
the  situation,  paying  tribute  to  escape  the  harassment  of  war.  A 
part  of  the  Danites,  probably  the  most  adventurous  spirits,  had 
preferred  to  seek  a  new  home  in  the  north,  as  already  related. 
Those  that  were  left  bowed  to  the  Philistine  yoke. 

Certainly  there  is  no  settled  enmity  where  Samson  can  so  easily 
obtain  a  wife.  The  woman's  preference  for  her  own  kin,  shown 
in  the  betrayal  of  the  secret  of  the  riddle,  is  only  what  may  be 
expected  in  Oriental  society.  Samson's  outbreaks  are  acts  of 
private  revenge  such  as  might  occur  in  tribal  society  at  any  time. 
Individually  he  is  wronged  by  his  wife's  treachery ;  he  leaves 
her  in  anger,  and  is  wronged  again  by  her  father's  giving  her 
to  another ;  individually  he  takes  his  revenge  on  the  whole  clan 
by  burning  up  the  standing  corn.1  His  people  do  not  make 

1  On  the  Philistines,  besides  the  commentaries  to  Judges,  compare  W.  M. 
Mtiller,  Asien  und  Europa,  pp.  387-390,  and  Studien  zur  Vorderasiatischtn 
Geschichte,  II  (1900). 

1  When  the  grain  is  dead  ripe  it  is  easily  set  on  fire.  Modern  travellers 
remark  on  the  care  taken  by  the  Fellahin  to  prevent  fire  spreading  in  time 
of  harvest. 

Samson's  marriage  was  of  the  Sadiqa  type  already  commented  upon  in  the 
CMC  of  Gideon. 


THE  HEROES  103 

the  quarrel  their  own;  in  fact,  when  the  Philistines  demand 
him,  they  hand  him  over  for  punishment.  This  does  not  pre- 
vent their  enjoyment  of  his  successful  feats. 

How  far  the  details  of  these  stories  are  accurate,  is  a  question 
of  minor  importance.  Our  interest  in  the  narrative  is  excited 
less  by  the  remarkable  incidents  than  by  the  religious  concep- 
tions revealed.  Samson's  strength  is  in  his  hair.  This  points  to 
an  estimation  of  the  hair  of  which  we  have  numerous  parallels  in 
other  religions.  In  the  Old  Testament  this  estimate  is  most 
fully  expressed  in  the  Nazirite.  A  Nazirite  is  a  man,  who,  for  a 
time,  is  in  a  state  of  special  ceremonial  consecration.  As  a  part 
of  his  consecration,  and  as  its  external  sign,  he  lets  his  hair 
grow  long.  The  Hebrew  writer  regards  Samson  as  a  life-long 
Nazirite.  The  only  other  mark  of  consecration  given  in  his 
case,  is  abstinence  from  the  fruit  of  the  vine.  It  is  clear  that  this 
marks  his  consecration  as  a  consecration  to  Yahweh,  the  God  of 
the  desert.  The  vine  was  sacred  to  another  god,  and  therefore 
forbidden. 

There  is  no  other  Old  Testament  instance  in  which  long  hair 
is  associated  with  great  physical  strength;  but  it  is  easy  to  trace 
the  connexion  of  ideas.  Samson's  great  strength  was  a  special 
gift  of  Yahweh.  His  feats  are,  in  fact,  ascribed  to  a  distinct 
inrush  of  the  Spirit  of  Yahweh.1  Should  the  consecration  be 
broken,  the  special  relation  with  Yahweh  would  no  longer  exist. 
The  cutting  of  the  hair  breaks  the  consecration — "he  did  not 
know  that  Yahweh  had  departed  from  him  ' '  is  the  assertion  of 
the  text.  The  mechanical  nature  of  the  conception  is  evident  in 
the  sequel,  for  when  the  hair  grew  again,  the  strength  returned. 
Amazing  as  it  is  to  us  to  find  a  religion  in  which  Yahweh  cared 
more  for  the  hair  than  for  the  chastity  of  His  devotee,  we  are 
obliged  to  admit  that  such  a  religion  existed  in  Israel  in  the  time 
of  the  Judges. 

Reviewing  the  period  which  we  call  by  the  name  of  the  Judges 
we  see  that  it  is  really  the  second  stage  of  the  conquest.  Israel 

1  Judg.  14  •-1',  i$u-  It  is  a  serious  question  whether,  in  this  period, 
Yahweh  was  not  identified  with  the  Sun-god.  The  name  Samson  indicates 
consecration  to  the  Sun,  to  whom  there  was  a  sanctuary  (Beth  Shemesh)  in 
the  region. 

On  the  connexion  of  long  hair  with  religious  consecration,  see  W.  R, 
Smith,  Religion  of  the  Semitts,  pp.  305-315,  Frazer,  The  Golden  Bough, 1+ 
p.  193  f.,  II,  328. 


104  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

has  now  made  its  way  into  many  parts  of  the  land.  It  has 
adopted  the  agricultural  life  and  has  some  fortified  towns  of  its 
own.  In  other  towns  it  lives  in  conjunction  with  the  Canaanites 
— probably  each  race  has  a  separate  quarter  to  itself.  Treaties 
existed  which  secured  the  rights  of  the  parties.  But  in  the  absence 
of  a  central  authority  these  treaties  were  easily  disregarded. 
Some  consciousness  there  was  that  all  the  Israelite  clans  were  of 
one  blood,  and  that  the  Canaanites  were  not  of  their  race.  But 
this  consciousness  was  not  strong  enough  to  keep  the  tribes  from 
warring  on  each  other. 

No  people  ever  reached  this  stage  of  civilisation  without  hav- 
ing a  literature,  and  we  must  suppose  that  the  sagas  which  have 
come  down  to  us  were  already  circulated.  The  sense  of  unity 
was  probably  fostered  by  the  stories  of  the  common  ancestor 
Jacob.  The  poem  which  we  call  the  Testament  of  Jacob  dates 
in  part  from  this  period.  It  describes  the  situation  of  the  tribes 
and  their  character.  We  hear  of  Reuben,  who  still  clings  to  the 
nomad  life,  too  passionate,  too  uncontrolled,  to  attain  to  any- 
thing better.  Simeon  and  Levi  are  condemned  for  their  ruthless- 
ness  and  threatened  with  extinction.  Issachar  is  still  under 
bondage  to  the  Canaanite,  a  bondage  that  he  threw  off  under 
Barak.  Dan  and  Gad  are  in  constant  warfare  with  their  neigh- 
bours, and  Benjamin  also  lives  a  freebooter  life.  Asher,  Naphtali, 
and  Ephraim  are  in  possession  of  a  fruitful  country  from  which 
they  obtain  abundance  of  dainties. 

We  are  here  a  long  way  from  the  desert  life,  and  the  sagas,  as 
we  have  seen,  reflect  the  view  of  the  peasant  rather  than  the 
Bedawy.  The  curse  of  Cain  is  that  he  lives  a  nomad  ;  the  lot  of 
Jacob  is  praised  above  that  of  Esau.  At  the  same  time,  the 
shepherd  life  has  not  lost  its  charm.  The  Israelite  delights  in  the 
shrewdness  of  the  arch-shepherd  Jacob,  his  ancestor.  So,  too,  he 
recounts  with  admiration  and  something  like  awe,  Israel's  night 
contest  with  a  divine  being,  in  which  the  human  hero  came  off 
conqueror.  Such  stories  fostered  the  sense  of  unity  among  the 
tribes. 

More  effective  still  was  the  common  belief  in  Yahweh  as  the 
God  of  Israel.  In  some  cases  He  is  thought  of  as  still  dwelling 
in  His  original  home  in  the  south.  It  is  thence  that  He  comes 
to  the  help  of  Israel  against  Sisera.  But  He  is  also  active  in  the 
land  and  seems  early  to  have  acquired  a  title  to  it.  It  is  His 


THE  HEROES  IO5 

spirit  which  rushes  upon  Gideon  and  Samson  and  fits  them  for 
their  work.  How  far  He  was  identified  with  the  local  Baals  we 
cannot  clearly  make  out.  But  we  must  suppose  that  at  the  sanc- 
tuary of  Bethel  (for  example)  Yahweh  was  the  God  that  was 
worshipped.  To  Him  Gideon  consecrated  an  Ephod,  and  it 
was  He  to  whom  the  unlucky  Micah  dedicated  that  image  which 
the  Danites  appropriated  by  the  right  of  the  strongest. 

The  question  of  historical  interest  was  whether  the  sense  of 
unity,  racial  and  religious,  would  be  able  to  work  out  a  real  polit- 
ical union.  At  the  close  of  the  period  the  prospect  was  not 
hopeful.  The  incident  with  which  the  Book  of  Judges  concludes 
is  calculated  to  bring  this  into  view  and  may  appropriately  open 
the  next  chapter. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE    EARLY    MONARCHY 

IN  the  first  flush  of  invasion  Israel  had  carried  the  highlands. 
But  the  Canaanites  pertinaciously  maintained  themselves  in  the 
plains.  The  Philistines  were  seasoned  warriors  and  were  able 
not  only  to  master  the  maritime  plain  but  also  to  push  their  con- 
quests into  the  hill  country.  Their  relations  to  Dan  we  have 
already  discussed.  In  Benjamin  they  claimed  the  supremacy,  and 
their  Resident,  perhaps  supported  by  a  garrison,  was  established 
at  Gibeah  as  an  instrument  for  the  collection  of  tribute  and  a 
sign  of  the  subjection  of  Israel.  To  make  common  cause  against 
such  a  foe  would  seem  to  be  the  part  of  common  prudence. 
And  yet  the  tribes  were  quarrelling  among  themselves. 

The  incoherence  of  the  people  who  called  themselves  Ben$ 
Israel  (Sons  of  Israel)  is  strikingly  brought  out  by  the  concluding 
narrative  of  the  Book  of  Judges,  to  which  a  brief  allusion  has 
already  been  made.  Unfortunately  the  story  has  been  worked 
over  by  a  later  hand  so  as  to  teach  the  very  opposite  lesson. 
What  we  may  reasonably  suppose  to  be  the  original  story  is 
something  as  follows  :  * 

A  man  who  dwelt  in  Mount  Ephraim  had  a  wife  from  Bethle- 
hem. In  a  fit  of  anger  the  woman  left  him  and  returned  to  her 
father's  house.  After  a  time  her  husband  sought  her  and  they 
were  reconciled.  The  hospitality  of  the  father  made  it  difficult 
for  them  to  get  away,  but  finally,  one  afternoon,  they  made  a 
start.  The  day  was  far  gone  when  they  reached  Jerusalem,  and 
the  servant  who  was  with  them  proposed  they  should  lodge  in 
that  city.  The  master,  however,  did  not  trust  the  hospitality 

1The  story  in  Judges  19-21  shows  more  marks  of  late  date  than  any 
other  portion  of  the  book.  As  it  stands,  it  pictures  Israel  as  a  theocratic 
community,  moving  as  one  man  under  the  lead  of  the  priestly  oracle,  purg- 
ing out  iniquity  from  its  midst,  exterminating  men,  women,  and  children  in 
the  way  of  duty,  yet  mourning  over  the  loss  of  one  of  the  twelve  tribes  and 
taking  measures  to  restore  it.  All  this  is  evidently  late.  But  the  kernel  of 
the  story  seems  to  be  old  and  this  I  venture  to  use. 

1 06 


THE  EARLY   MONARCHY  IO/ 

of  Gentiles,  and  preferred  to  go  on  till  they  should  reach  an 
Israelite  town.  This  they  found  in  Gibeah  of  Benjamin,  but  not 
the  hospitality  for  which  they  looked.  No  attention  was  paid 
them  as  they  stood  in  the  public  square,  until  an  old  man,  not  a 
native  of  the  place,  took  them  to  his  house.  The  rest  of  the 
people  were  not  content  with  the  sin  of  omission.  They  invaded 
the  home  of  hospitality.  By  threats  of  the  vilest  description 
they  forced  the  stranger  to  deliver  his  wife  to  them,  and  her 
they  abused  so  that  she  died  under  their  hands. 

To  the  appeal  for  vengeance,  enough  Israelites  responded  to 
make  war  upon  Benjamin — for  this  tribe  made  common  cause  with 
the  criminals.  The  result  was  the  almost  complete  extermination 
of  the  tribe.  The  rest  of  Israel  had  forsworn  the  connubium 
with  them,  and  the  survivors  were  provided  with  wives  only  by  a 
scheme  which  reminds  us  of  the  rape  of  the  Sabines.  This  is 
what  the  author,  who  lived  after  the  establishment  of  royal  author- 
ity, regarded  as  each  man's  doing  that  which  was  right  in  his 
own  eyes — inhospitality,  violation  of  the  rights  of  the  guest, 
rape,  tribal  defence  of  violence,  robbery  of  maidens  from  neigh- 
bouring towns,  internecine  conflict.  It  is  probably  not  acci- 
dental that  an  attempt  to  remedy  these  evils  was  made  in  the 
tribe  which  had  suffered  most  deeply  from  them. 

The  narrative  of  the  origin  of  the  kingdom  which  has  come 
down  to  us  in  the  Books  of  Samuel  shows  a  strange  confusion  in 
the  treatment  of  this  subject.  In  the  looseness  of  the  tribal  or- 
ganisation, which  was  fitted  to  cope  neither  with  external  evils 
nor  with  internal  lawlessness,  some  men  must  have  looked  to  the 
monarchy  as  the  institution  essential  to  the  prosperity,  or  indeed 
the  existence,  of  Israel.  Our  narrative  records  such  a  desire  on 
the  part  of  the  people  as  a  whole,  but  goes  on  to  stigmatise  it 
as  contrary  to  the  will  of  Yahweh.  We  see  here  the  effect  of 
later  experience.  The  monarchy,  in  its  actual  working,  fell  far 
short  of  the  ideal.  Hence,  there  grew  up  the  conviction  that  the 
theocracy  was  Israel's  true  constitution.  It  is  this  judgment 
which  has  coloured  so  much  of  the  narrative  now  before  us.  Its 
inconsistency  with  other  parts  of  the  story  is  evident.  To  one 
author,  the  king  was  a  gift  of  God  to  His  people ;  to  another, 
the  king  was  granted  only  under  protest,  and  as  a  punishment 
for  the  people's  sins.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  former  is 
the  older  view,  and  our  history  must  carefully  trace  the  document 


IO8  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

in  which  it  appears.  This  document  is,  in  fact,  of  the  utmost 
value  for  the  reconstruction  of  the  period.1 

The  hero  of  the  narrative  is  Saul,  the  son  of  Kish.  He  is  in- 
troduced to  us  as  a  man  of  good  family,  his  father  being  a  well- 
to-do  farmer.1  Nobility  there  was  none  in  Israel,  though  no 
doubt  purity  of  blood  was  highly  esteemed,  as  it  always  has 
been  among  the  Arabs.  Saul,  though  he  had  attained  to  man- 
nood,  was  still  under  the  paternal  direction  and  occupied  in 
the  work  of  the  farm  with  apparently  no  higher  ambition,  when 
an  errand  on  which  he  was  sent  brought  him  a  new  impulse. 
The  asses  had  strayed,  and  Saul  made  a  considerable  journey  to 
seek  them,  but  without  success.  As  he  was  about  to  give  up  the 
search,  the  trusty  servant  who  accompanied  him  suggested  that 
they  inquire  of  a  seer  of  whom  he  had  heard.  This  man  (Samuel 
by  name)  was  a  member  of  the  class  which  is  found  in  all  stages 
of  society — clairvoyants,  mediums,  possessors  of  second  sight — 
to  whom  those  less  gifted  apply  for  counsel,  direction,  or  knowl- 
edge of  the  future.  The  recovery  of  lost  or  stolen  property  has 
always  been  one  of  the  things  for  which  they  have  been  consulted. 
We  readily  understand  how  Saul's  servant  advises  a  visit  to  Sam- 
uel, how  Saul  hesitates  because  he  has  not  the  customary  honora- 
rium, how,  when  reassured  on  this  point,  he  consents  to  go. 

Samuel,  however,  was  more  than  an  ordinary  seer.  By  his 
strong  sense,  his  probity,  and  his  devotion  to  the  interests  of  his 
people  he  had  established  himself  as  the  leading  man  in  the  little 
community  in  which  he  dwelt.  A  village  feast  was  at  hand,  at  which 
the  heads  of  families  partook  of  the  commor  sacrifice.  Samuel  was 
the  one  chosen  to  preside  on  this  as  on  all  public  occasions.  As 
Saul  and  his  servant  entered  the  village  they  met  him  going 

1  The  composite  character  of  the  Books  of  Samuel  (originally  one  Book) 
is  evident  at  a  glance.  For  the  analysis,  the  reader  may  be  referred  to 
Budde's  Richter  und  Samuel,  his  edition  of  the  Hebrew  text  in  Haupt's 
Sacred  Books  of  the  Old  Testament  (1894),  and  the  present  writer's  com- 
mentary in  the  International  Critical  Commentary  (1899).  On  the  text, 
which  has  suffered  much  in  transmission,  use  also  Wellhausen's  Text  der 
Sticker  Samuel's  (1871),  and  Driver's  Notes  on  the  Hebrew  Text  of  the 
Books  of  Samuel  (1890).  The  critical  questions  of  both  kinds  are  also 
treated  in  the  latest  (1903)  commentaries  of  Budde  and  Nowack. 

1  He  is  described  as  gibbor  hail,  which  is  erroneously  translated  mighty 
tnan  of  valour.  It  means,  simply,  a  man  who  has  landed  property,  and 
therefore  is  qualified  to  bear  arms,  cf.  2  K.  15  '* r. 


THE  EARLY   MONARCHY  ICX) 

up  to  the  sanctuary.  Courteously  inviting  the  strangers  to  ac- 
company him,  he  made  them  the  guests  of  honour  at  the  feast, 
and  afterward  took  them  to  his  house  for  the  night.  In  the 
morning  he  took  Saul  aside,  and  announced  the  divine  choice 
which  made  him  the  deliverer  of  Israel  for  whom  the  people  were 
longing.  This  message  he  confirmed  by  the  solemn  rite  of 
anointing — a  consecration  to  God  which  makes  the  recipient  a 
sacred  person.1 

This  picturesque  anecdote  is  an  early  attempt  to  give  the 
monarchy  divine  sanction.  To  understand  it  fully,  we  need  to 
take  into  view  its  sequel,  where  we  find  Saul  among  the 
prophets.  As  he  returns  to  his  native  town  of  Gibeah,  he  meets 
a  company  of  Nebiim  coming  down  from  the  sanctuary  in  sol- 
emn procession.  They  are  preceded  by  a  band  of  music  and  are 
engaged  in  the  enthusiastic  acts  of  worship  associated  with  so 
many  oriental  religions,  and  exemplified  in  the  ancient  Galli  as 
well  as  the  modern  dervishes.  As  Saul  meets  them,  he  is  over- 
come by  the  impulse  which  possesses  them,  and  himself  joins  in 
their  extravagances  so  as  to  call  out  the  wonder  of  his  fellow- 
townsmen.  In  the  parallel  account1  Saul  is  so  entirely  pos- 
sessed by  the  Spirit  that  he  is  incapable  of  carrying  out  the 
plans  upon  which  he  has  set  his  heart.  He  loses  all  will  of  his 
own,  and  marches  on  the  road  laid  out  for  him  by  a  higher  power. 
Arriving  at  the  company  of  enthusiasts  he  shares  their  extrava- 
gances even  to  the  stripping  off  of  his  garments,  and  finally,  with 
senses  overcome,  he  lies  in  a  trance  all  that  day  and  all  that 
night. 

We  have  here  one  of  the  most  remarkable  institutions  of  Israel's 
early  religion.  These  raving  prophets  can  be  understood  only 
by  comparison  with  their  fellows,  the  Galli  and  dervishes,  to 
whom  reference  has  already  been  made.  Such  prophets  are  found 
in  the  Canaanitish  religion,  where  they  dance  about  the  altar. 
From  the  Canaanites  the  institution  passed  over  to  Israel.  What 

1  The  anointing  of  the  sacred  pillar  at  Bethel  (Gen.  28  ")  gives  us  light 
upon  the  original  significance  of  the  act.  The  rite  was  very  ancient  in  Ca- 
naan according  to  the  El  Amarna  tablets  (Winckler's  edition  I,  p.  99).  An 
extended  discussion  of  the  subject  is  given  by  Weinel  in  the  Zeitsckr.  f.  d. 
Alttest.  Wisstnsch.,  1898,  pp.  1-82. 

1  I  Sam.  19  I8~M  is  undoubtedly  a  later  embellishment  of  the  original  ac- 
count which  we  read  in  io*-is.  But  the  embellishments  make  clear  how  the 
original  account  was  understood  by  the  earliest  readers. 


IIO  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

now  interests  us  is  the  appearance  of  the  prophets  in  the  history 
of  Saul.  We  must  remember  that  it  was  the  time  of  Philistine 
oppression.  If  relief  was  to  come,  it  must  come  by  a  new  relig- 
ious impulse.  In  the  earlier  time  we  have  seen  that  a  religious 
impulse  brought  Israel  out  of  Egypt.  It  was  probably  a  religious 
impulse  also  that  nerved  the  tribes  against  Sisera.  Now,  under 
the  Philistine  oppression,  earnest  men  began  to  have  accessions 
of  zeal  for  Yahweh.  The  zealots  (as  the  dervishes  so  often  have 
done)  stirred  up  the  people,  and  their  enthusiasm  became  conta- 
gious.1 The  monarchy  of  Saul  was  the  fruit  of  the  revival. 
This  is  indicated  both  by  Saul's  connexion  with  Samuel  and  by 
his  relations  with  the  prophets.  The  later  form  of  the  story  joins 
the  two  and  makes  Samuel  the  head  of  the  prophetic  movement. 
The  part  played  by  Samuel  in  this  account  is  that  of  a  prophet 
in  the  later  sense — he  is  a  revealer  of  the  will  of  God,  and  the 
organ  by  which  the  new  king  is  appointed.  It  was  inevitable 
that  a  later  time,  looking  back  to  the  theocracy  as  its  ideal, 
should  magnify  his  part  in  the  history  of  Israel.  From  this  point 
of  view  we  readily  understand  the  opening  chapters  of  the  book 
of  Samuel,  for  in  these  chapters  Samuel  himself  appears  in  the 
light  of  a  divinely  appointed  ruler — a  second  Moses — greater  than 
a  Gideon  or  a  Jephthah.  In  this  office  of  theocratic  head  of  the 
people  he  takes  his  place  in  the  series  of  Judges,  succeeding  Eli, 

1  The  word  which  we  translate  prophet,  nabf,  is  yet  an  unsolved  riddle  in 
the  Hebrew  vocabulary.  The  most  natural  hypothesis  is  that  it  is  a  bor- 
rowed word.  As  to  the  fact  of  the  nabi's  enthusiastic  or  orgiastic  behaviour 
the  passage  just  discussed  is  sufficient  evidence.  In  the  same  line  is  the  ex- 
travagance of  some  of  the  later  prophets,  the  use  of  the  verb  '  prophesy '  for 
the  raving  of  a  (feigned)  madman,  and  the  characterisation  of  a  young 
prophet  as  crazy.  The  dancing  of  Canaanitish  prophets  or  priests  about  the 
altar  is  the  prelude  to  oracular  utterances,  cf.  Proceedings  of  the  Soc.  Sib. 
Arch.  XXI.  p.  253,  and  I  Kings,  i821-28,  where  the  prophets  of  Baal  are 
described;  also  W.  M.  Mliller,  Studicn  zur  Vordtrasiatischen  Geschichte, 
II,  p.  17.  As  there  was  a  god  Nebo  (Nabu)  in  Babylon  who  was  the  pro- 
claimer  of  truth  or  wisdom,  it  does  not  seem  far-fetched  to  connect  the  nabf 
with  him,  especially  as  his  worship  had  spread  to  Palestine  at  a  very  early 
day — a  mountain  in  Moab  and  a  town  in  Judah  bore  his  name.  The  nabf 
would  then  be  one  possessed  by  Nebo.  On  the  god  Nabu,  cf.  Jastrow,  Relig- 
ion of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  pp.  124-130;  Schrader,  Keilinsch.  und  Altes 
Testament,  *  p.  399  ff.  Enthusiastic  dancing  about  the  altar  is  one  of  the 
earliest  expressions  of  religious  emotion.  A  Baal  of  the  sacred  dance  is 
known  to  us  from  an  inscription  discovered  near  Beirut,  Bsethgen,  Beitragt 
tttr  Semitischen  Religionsgeschichte,  p.  25. 


THE   EARLY   MONARCHY  III 

whose  sons  were  cut  off  because  of  their  wickedness.  The  well- 
known  narrative  gives  us  a  charming  picture  of  faith  and  piety  in 
the  person  of  Hannah.  The  childless  woman  comes  to  the  sanct- 
uary to  pray  for  a  son,  and  in  her  strong  desire  vows,  in  case  he  is 
granted,  to  give  him  to  the  sanctuary  as  its  servant.  The  boy  is 
born  and  faithfully  dedicated  according  to  the  vow.  His  fidelity 
is  brought  into  strong  relief  by  the  contrasted  conduct  of  the  sons 
of  Eli.  These  are  types  of  the  arrogant  priests  who  care  for  their 
office  only  so  far  as  it  fills  their  bellies.  Regardless  of  ancient 
custom,  they  pick  for  themselves  the  best  pieces  of  the  sacrifices, 
and  with  indecent  haste  send  their  servants  to  claim  their 
share  even  before  the  sacred  rites  have  been  duly  performed.1 
Their  weak  and  indulgent  father  is  warned  on  their  account,  but 
in  vain.  The  sons  are  destroyed  in  battle  ;  the  father  is  himself 
killed  by  shock  at  the  loss  of  that  which  he  held  dearer  even  than 
his  sons — the  Ark  of  Yahweh.  In  this  tale  of  disaster  Samuel 
stands  out  as  the  faithful  servant  of  Yahweh.  While  yet  a  youth 
he  receives  a  revelation  directed  against  the  house  of  Eli.  Later 
he  is  favoured  with  others  which  establish  him  in  the  opinion  of 
the  people.  Finally  he  is  the  recognised  vindicator  of  the  people, 
at  whose  prayer  the  Philistines  suffer  a  miraculous  defeat,  and 
come  no  more  into  the  border  of  Israel.* 

This  whole  account  must  be  received  with  the  greatest  caution. 
If  Samuel  were  the  theocratic  ruler  of  the  people  and  at  the  same 
time  their  successful  leader  against  their  enemies,  what  need  for 
the  monarchy  at  all  ?  The  answer  of  the  author  would  be  that 
there  was  no  need  for  a  monarchy ;  that  the  call  for  a  king  was 
simply  a  manifestation  of  the  depravity  of  the  people.  This  he 
brings  out  by  making  Samuel  treat  the  demand  for  a  king  as 
apostasy  from  Yahweh.  Samuel  is  in  this  narrative  intended 
to  make  Saul  superfluous.  The  construction  of  history  is  an  ideal 
one  which  quite  ignores  the  actual  sequence  of  events. 

While  we  are  obliged  to  resign  the  Samuel  of  these  earlier 
chapters,  there  is  one  section  which  may  give  us  some  historical 

I  i  Sam.   2  1J-1T.     At  first  sight  the  passage  seems  to  be  ancient.     But 
on  reflection  we  see  that  the  author  has  no  really  serious  charges  to  bring 
against  the   priests.     Contrasting   his  indictment  with  that  of   Hosea,  for 
example,  we  find  it  expressive  of  advanced  ritualism  and   an  exaggerated 
estimate  of  sacred  things. 

I 1  Sam.  7  u.     This  chapter  is  certainly  late. 


112  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

material.  The  scene  of  Eli's  ministration  is  the  sanctuary  of 
Shiloh.1  This  was  a  substantial  structure  in  which  the  central 
sacred  object  was  the  Ark,  already  known  to  us  in  the  story  of  the 
exodus.  Eli  the  priest  is,  like  Samuel,  an  idealised  figure  presented 
to  us  as  one  of  the  Judges  of  Israel.*  When  Philistine  aggression 
drove  the  people  to  arms,  a  battle  was  fought  in  the  country  be- 
low Shiloh.  Israel  was  defeated  in  the  first  collision  and  the 
Sheikhs  determined  to  bring  the  Ark  from  Shiloh  that  it  might 
lead  them  to  victory.  The  position  accorded  to  Yahweh  as  the 
God  of  battles  made  this  a  natural  step,  and  if  we  may  trust  the 
history  of  the  exodus,  the  Ark  was  from  earlier  times  put  in 
front  of  the  host  in  order  that  it  might  insure  the  defeat  of  the 
enemy.  Only  so  can  we  understand  the  ancient  cry  with  which 
it  was  greeted  : 

Rise,  Yahweh,  and  let  thine  enemies  be  scattered  ! 
And  let  thy  haters  flee  before  thee  ! ' 

The  superstition  which  saw  in  the  Ark  a  sure  pledge  of  victory 
was  rebuked  by  the  sequel.  Whether  the  Israelites  were  over- 
confident or  not,  the  Philistines  seem  to  have  fought  with  the 
courage  of  despair.  The  army  of  Israel  was  annihilated ;  the 
bearers  of  the  Ark  were  slain ;  the  palladium  itself  fell  into  the 
hands  of  the  enemy;  Shiloh  was  razed  to  the  ground.  The 
prophet  Jeremiah  could  point  to  it  as  an  instructive  example  of 
God's  vengeance  upon  a  place  which  once  He  had  chosen  as  His 
habitation. 

The  Ark  could  not  long  be  detained  away  from  its  own  peo- 
ple. The  captors,  to  show  the  superiority  of  their  own  god, 
placed  it  as  a  trophy  in  the  Temple  of  Dagon.4  But  mysteri- 
ous visitations  upon  the  idol  made  them  uneasy  in  the  suspicion 
that  after  all  Yahweh  might  be  the  stronger.  The  suspicion  was 
confirmed  by  an  outbreak  of  the  bubonic  plague  in  the  city  where 
the  Ark  was  detained.  Suspicion  became  certainty  when  the 

1  The  locality  which  still  bears  the  name  Seilun  is  accurately  described  in 
Judg.  2i19;  cf.  Moore's  note  on  the  passage  and  his  references. 

1  I  Sam.  4  I8,  a  redactional  insertion,  but  one  which  correctly  interprets 
the  traditional  position  of  Eli. 

8  Num.  10  8i ;   the  section  is  ascribed  to  J  by  the  majority  of  critics. 

*  The  nature  of  this  Philistine  divinity  is  still  obscure.  His  name  occurs 
in  Assyrian,  cf.  Jastrow,  Religion  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  p.  208  f. 


THE  EARLY   MONARCHY  1 13 

plague  followed  the  route  which  the  Ark  took  when  sent  from 
city  to  city.  At  last  the  popular  terror  became  uncontrollable. 
The  chiefs  were  compelled  to  return  the  dangerous  emblem  or 
depository  of  superhuman  power.  Every  effort  was  now  made  to 
conciliate  the  offended  deity.  A  suitable  votive  offering  was 
prepared  and  placed  with  the  Ark  itself  upon  a  new,  and  there- 
fore unpolluted,  cart.  The  untaught  kine  obeyed  the  divine 
impulse  and  took  the  nearest  way  to  the  territory  of  Israel.1 

The  sacred  object  was  able  to  show  its  power  on  friends  as 
well  as  foes.  At  Beth-shemesh  its  death-dealing  holiness  proved 
destructive  to  seventy  men,  and  the  people  hastened  to  get  rid 
of  so  dangerous  a  treasure.  At  Kirjath-jearim,  whither  it  was 
carried,  it  was  more  placable  or  was  better  treated,  and  here  it 
rested  till  the  time  of  David.1  There  is  some  confusion  in  the 
sources  as  to  the  name  of  the  place,  which  is  later  called  Baal 
Judah.  As  we  know  Kirjath-jearim  to  have  been  one  of  the 
Canaanite  cities  to  a  comparatively  late  date,  we  may  conjecture 
that  this  accounts  for  the  change  of  name  in  the  narrative  of 
David's  life. 

Is  this  incident  of  the  capture  and  return  of  the  Ark  historical? 
Serious  objection  is  made  to  it  by  some  scholars  on  the  ground 
that  if  once  captured  the  Ark  was  not  likely  to  be  restored.  That 
it  should  be  captured  is  not  improbable.  It  was  the  custom  to 
carry  it  into  battle.  We  cannot  suppose  it  impossible  that  it 
should  ever  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  enemy.  We  cannot  ac- 
count for  the  story  of  its  capture  without  some  basis  of  fact — the 
pride  of  Israel  would  have  resented  the  invention  of  such  a  story. 
And,  if  captured,  there  is  no  reason  why  it  might  not  make  the 
impression  which  is  so  vividly  described  in  the  narrative.  The 
God  of  Israel  had  more  than  once  shown  His  power.  A 
plague  breaking  out  about  the  time  of  the  capture  would  quite 
certainly  be  interpreted  as  the  stroke  of  His  wrath.  To  send 
Him  back  to  His  own  people  would  be  the  dictate  of  common 
prudence.  The  sobriety  of  the  narrative  is  seen  in  its  limiting 
the  power  of  Yahweh  to  the  pestilence,  and  not  making  Him 

I  According  to  Bavarian  legend  the  corpse  of  Saint  Emmeram  was  in  like 
manner  committed  to  a  yoke  of  oxen,  who  were  allowed  to  choose  their  own 
way;    Usener,  Religionsgeseh.  Untenuchungen,  III.,  p.  137. 

I 1  Sam.  5  '-7  l.     The  section  is  older  than  the  narrative  in  which  it  is 
imbedded. 


114  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

overthrow  the  armies  of  the  Philistines  in  some  public  way.  The 
same  sobriety  is  seen  in  the  position  which  is  given  the  Ark  it- 
self. The  sacred  object  is  not  made  the  sole  and  central  symbol 
of  the  Godhead  to  all  Israel.  The  loss  of  it  did  not  affect  the 
chief  sanctuaries  in  the  least,  nor  did  its  return  make  Kirjath-jea- 
rim  the  only  place  of  legitimate  worship.  Samuel  never  visited 
it  after  its  return,  never  tried  to  restore  it  to  his  own  tribe  or 
city.  Saul  paid  it  no  attention.  In  all  these  respects  we  see 
that  our  narrative  has  been  kept  free  from  the  representations 
of  a  later  age. 

The  incident  of  the  capture  of  the  Ark  is  calculated  to  give  us 
a  vivid  conception  of  the  Philistine  power.  If  that  power  was 
sufficient  to  carry  off  the  Ark  and  conquer  its  defenders  in  a 
pitched  battle,  what  might  it  not  accomplish?  In  truth,  the 
Philistine  oppression  was  severe,  and  its  severity  was  not  miti- 
gated by  the  infliction  of  the  plague.  The  paragraph  in  the 
history  which  speaks  of  the  Israelites  as  being  totally  disarmed, 
is  indeed  an  exaggeration.  But  the  fact  that  a  Philistine  Resident 
was  stationed  at  Gibeah,  in  the  very  heart  of  Benjamin,  shows 
the  galling  nature  of  the  foreign  yoke.  From  this  yoke  Saul 
sought  to  deliver  Israel,  and  though  he  himself  accomplished 
little,  he  kept  the  spirit  of  the  nation  alive,  and  prepared  the 
way  for  his  greater  successor.  It  has  been  his  misfortune  that 
his  exploits  have  been  compared  with  those  of  this  successor. 

The  kingship  was  not,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  conferred  upon  Saul 
by  the  word  of  Samuel.  The  election  by  lot,  which  is  related  in 
connexion  with  the  demand  of  the  people  for  a  king,  is  an  imagi- 
native construction  of  legend.  Saul  became  king  by  an  act  of 
prowess  like  that  which  brought  Gideon  into  prominence  in 
Israel.  It  was  again  the  Bedawin  which  gave  occasion  for  a 
great  deed.  The  Ammonites  made  a  raid  upon  their  Israelite 
neighbours,  besieging  Jabesh  Gilead.1  The  townsmen,  rather 
than  see  their  country  devastated,  offered  to  make  an  arrange- 
ment such  as  often  existed  between  two  tribes  in  that  period. 
They  doubtless  expected  to  pay  tribute  as  the  price  of  peace — the 
proposition  was  in  line  with  what  Israelites  and  Canaanites  had 
often  done.  But  Nahash,  the  Sheikh  of  the  invaders,  insisted  on 
terms  hitherto  unheard  of.  He  would  put  out  the  right  eye  of 

1  Wadi  Yabis,  which  falls  into  the  Jordan  valley  about  twenty  miles 
south  of  the  Lake  of  Galilee,  seems  to  preserve  the  ancient  name. 


THE  EARLY   MONARCH?  1:5 

every  male  in  the  town,  and  would  "  lay  it  as  a  reproacn  on  all 
Israel."  The  sarcasm  which  Arab  poets  know  how  to  pour  upon 
cowardice,  sufficiently  shows  what  Israel  would  suffer  in  case  this 
outrage  were  inflicted  upon  their  brethren.  Whether  Nahash  had 
a  personal  wrong  to  avenge  (it  has  been  suggested  that  he  himself 
had  lost  an  eye  in  battle),  or  whether  it  was  a  case  of  sheer  bar- 
barity, we  cannot  now  determine.  Secure  in  the  supposed  weak- 
ness of  Israel,  he  allowed  the  men  of  Jabesh  to  seek  help  among 
their  kin.  Messengers  hastened  across  the  Jordan,  probably  with 
no  very  sanguine  hopes  of  rallying  their  disunited  brethren  to 
their  support. 

It  was  with  no  thought  of  Saul's  authority  or  influence  that  the 
messengers  came  to  Gibeah,  for  the  king  assumed  neither  author- 
ity nor  title.1  After  the  religious  exaltation  of  his  meeting  with 
the  dervishes,  he  had  quietly  returned  to  the  work  of  the  field. 
When  the  news  came  of  the  hard  fate  of  Jabesh,  the  people  broke 
out  in  weeping,  but  no  one  thought  of  sending  for  Saul.  It  was 
only  as  he  returned  from  his  day's  work  that  he  discovered  the 
commotion,  and  learned  its  cause.  Then  a  mighty  impulse 
seized  him.  The  Spirit  of  God  rushed  upon  Aim2  as  it  used  to 
rush  upon  Samson.  He  hewed  his  oxen  in  pieces,  and  sent  the 
pieces  to  all  Israel  with  the  message:  "Whosoever  comes  not 
after  Saul,  so  shall  his  oxen  be  treated."  The  answer  was  a 
muster  of  the  people  so  prompt,  that  the  Ammonites  were  taken 
by  surprise  and  thoroughly  routed.  The  deliverance  of  Jabesh 
was  complete,  and,  as  in  the  cases  of  Gideon  and  Jephthah,  the 
event  marked  Saul  as  the  divinely  chosen  chief  of  the  people.  With 
Saul,  however,  there  was  a  distinct  advance.  The  assumption  of 
the  title  of  king  showed  a  purpose  to  inaugurate  a  more  stable  gov- 
ernment than  had  existed  before.  To  the  people,  first  and  last,  the 
chief  office  of  the  king  was  to  lead  them  in  battle  against  their  ene- 
mies. The  new  dignity  was  conferred  at  the  ancient  sanctuary 

1  There  is  a  possibility,  however,  that  Jabesh  and  Benjamin  regarded 
themselves  as  closely  akin.  The  account  of  the  attack  of  the  other  tribes 
upon  Benjamin  tells  of  the  Benjamites  receiving  wives  from  Jabesh  (Judg.  21 
°-}t),  and  the  piety  of  the  Jabeshites  toward  Saul  after  his  death  argues  for 
some  uncommon  bond  of  union.  The  elaborate  conclusions  of  \Vinckler, 
however  (fCeilinschri/ten  und  Altes  Testament1,  p.  227,  and  Geschichte 
Israels,  II,  pp.  155-158),  seem  to  rest  on  a  slender  basis. 

*i  Sam.  iie,  Judg.  14 '•lt,  15";  the  verb  is  the  same  in  the  four 
passages. 


Il6  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

of  Gilgal,  where,  after  offering  sacrifices,  Saul  and  the  men  of 
Israel  rejoiced  exceedingly.1 

That  Israel  should  weaken  itself  by  fighting  with  Ammon, 
could  be  looked  upon  only  with  pleasure  by  the  Philistines.  The 
organisation  of  Benjamin  under  a  king  was  also  a  small  matter  in 
their  eyes.  How  the  internal  affairs  of  their  tributaries  were 
conducted  did  not  concern  them,  so  long  as  the  tribute  was  not 
endangered.  The  kingship  of  Saul  can  hardly  have  been  recog- 
nised (at  least  at  first)  beyond  the  boundaries  of  his  own  tribe. 
The  haughty  and  turbulent  Ephraimites  were  not  likely  to  sub- 
mit to  him,  and  Judah,  as  we  know,  was  only  very  loosely  con- 
nected with  Israel.  We  may  suppose  that  the  new  king  spent 
some  time  quietly  in  establishing  his  power  before  he  ventured  to 
try  conclusions  with  the  main  enemy.  Our  narrative  is  silent  ex- 
cept with  regard  to  the  leading  events,  and  gives  us  no  clew  as 
to  the  chronology  of  the  period.  It  tells  us  only  that  Saul  en- 
listed three  thousand  men,  with  whom  he  garrisoned  Bethel, 
Michmash,  and  Geba.1  These  were  important  points  for  the 
control  of  the  highways,  both  the  one  running  north  and  south, 
and  the  one  running  across  the  country  into  the  Jordan  valley. 
As  the  security  of  the  roads  is  one  of  the  chief  cares  of  the  king, 
this  measure  is  quite  intelligible.  These  fortresses  were  also  well 
situated  to  discover  and  check  any  invading  force. 

When  we  first  met  Saul,  he  was  described  to  us  as  a  young 
man.  The  next  adventure  presents  him  as  more  mature  in  years, 
father  of  a  son  who  is  capable  of  bearing  arms — the  well-known 
and  well-beloved  Jonathan.1  The  name  tempts  us  to  linger, 
for  the  Old  Testament  writers  have  dealt  lovingly  with  it.  We 
find  the  young  man  presented  as  the  paragon  of  friendship,  the 

'The  story  of  the  relief  of  Jabesh  (i  Sam.  n)  is  ancient,  and  the  sub- 
stance may  well  be  taken  for  authentic  history.  In  the  received  text  are 
some  interpolations,  designed  to  harmonise  its  statements  with  the  other 
document  with  which  it  is  combined.  Samuel  was  originally  unknown  to 
it,  bat  has  been  introduced  in  the  process  of  redaction.  In  the  correct 
reading,  it  dates  the  relief  of  Jabesh  about  a  month  after  Saul's  first  anointing. 
The  enormous  numbers  of  Saul's  militia  must  be  judged  like  similar  data 
elsewhere. 

*  As  David  had  a  body-guard  of  only  six  hundred  men,  we  may  suspect 
the  three  thousand  to  be  an  exaggeration. 

1  Whom  Yahwth  gave  is  the  meaning  of  the  name.  Saul's  piety  is  mani- 
fested in  all  the  names  he  gave  his  sons. 


THE  EARLY   MONARCHY  llj 

loving  and  generous  prince  who  could  rejoice  that  he  was  to  be 
supplanted  in  the  kingdom  by  his  friend  David.  At  his  first  in- 
troduction to  us  the  shadow  has  not  yet  begun  to  fall  over  his 
life.  He  is  the  intrepid  warrior,  without  whose  impetuosity  Saul 
might  never  have  broken  with  the  Philistines.  It  was  Jonathan 
who  struck  the  first  blow  for  freedom.  As  crown  prince  he  had 
command  of  the  troops  at  Geba.  The  place  is  on  the  south  side 
of  a  wadi  running  up  from  the  Jordan  valley.  At  this  place  the 
Philistine  Resident  was  stationed,  a  constant  provocation  to  the 
young  soldier.  Impatience  getting  the  upper  hand,  Jonathan 
slew  the  agent  of  oppression  with  his  own  hand.  The  act  of  re- 
volt needed  no  interpreter,  and  the  Philistines  promptly  moved 
into  the  hill  country.  Coming  from  the  north  (as  would  appear), 
they  forced  Saul  to  evacuate  two  of  his  posts — Bethel  and  Mich- 
mash.  Geba,  however,  was  protected  by  the  ravine  which  ran 
between  it  and  Michmash,  and  its  garrison  could  not  so  easily 
be  dispossessed.  Saul's  men  deserted  in  numbers,  and  his  force 
was  reduced  to  six  hundred  men.  With  these  he  held  Geba, 
but  was  unable  to  take  the  offensive,  or  even  to  check  the  devas- 
tation of  the  country.  After  the  manner  of  Oriental  (and  also  of 
Occidental)  warfare,  the  Philistine  bands  harried  the  country. 
From  the  fixed  camp  at  Michmash,  where  they  could  hold  the 
Benjamites  in  check,  they  daily  sent  out  parties  of  raiders  to  the 
north,  east,  and  west.  These,  with  settled  purpose,  looted, 
killed,  and  burned  whatever  belonged  to  Israel. 

A  bold  stroke  by  Jonathan  brought  light  into  the  darkness 
which  seemed  settling  upon  Israel.  From  the  camp  at  Geba  he 
could  look  across  the  ravine  and  see  what  was  doing  at  Michmash.1 
There  the  advance  post  of  the  Philistines  was  stationed  on  the 
edge  of  the  cliff  overlooking  the  ravine.  The  young  soldier 
could  not  help  thinking  what  a  fine  thing  it  would  be  to  give 
them  a  fright,  and  the  thought  became  a  resolve. 

As  was  appropriate  to  a  prince  and  an  officer,  Jonathan  had  a 
squire  or  adjutant — armour-bearer  is  the  Hebrew  title — who 
fought  by  his  side.1  Such  an  officer  naturally  became  the  con- 

1  It  is  acutely  conjectured  by  Duff  (Old  Testament  Theology,  II,  p.  223) 
that  the  name  means  Place  of  Chemosh.  Chemosh  was  the  god  of  Moab,  and 
the  name  might  have  been  given  during  the  Moabite  invasion  from  which 
deliverance  was  wrought  by  Ehud. 

1  We  have  already  met  such  an  officer  in  the  case  of  Abunelech,  Judg  9**. 


Il8  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

fidential  friend  of  his  chief;  so  we  are  not  surprised  to  find  Jona- 
than confiding  his  plans  to  him.  What  he  proposes  is  that  they 
quietly  make  their  way  to  the  bottom  of  the  ravine  and  then 
show  themselves  in  the  open.  If  the  sentinels  observe  them  and 
banter  them  to  climb  the  slope  they  will  take  it  as  Yahweh's 
omen  that  they  are  to  make  the  attempt.  The  squire  is  in  no 
way  behind  his  chief  in  ambition,  and  readily  seconds  the  plan. 
The  result  is  as  Jonathan  expected.  The  sentinels  seeing  the 
young  men  below  them,  amuse  themselves  with  watching  the 
"Hebrews  coming  out  of  their  holes."  Then  they  shout: 
' '  Come  up  hither  and  we  will  show  you  something. ' '  This  is  the 
tooked-for  omen,  and  in  the  confidence  that  it  is  a  sign  from 
Yahweh,  the  two  warriors  scramble  up  the  cliff.  The  men  of  the 
outpost  are  taken  aback  by  the  unexpected  move.  Uncertain 
whether  there  may  not  be  a  large  force  swarming  up  the  slope, 
they  hesitate,  then  turn  to  flee.  The  active  Jonathan,  "swifter 
than  an  eagle,"  as  he  is  described  later,1  pursues,  overtakes, 
beats  down,  and  with  the  help  of  his  adjutant  soon  puts  some 
twenty  men  beyond  the  power  of  doing  harm. 

The  undisciplined  armies  of  the  East  are  easily  thrown  into  a 
panic.  The  force  of  Philistines  on  this  occasion  was  a  miscella- 
neous body  drawn  together  by  the  hope  of  plunder.  Besides 
Philistines  and  Canaanites  it  contained  many  Hebrews,  who  were 
pressed  into  the  service  either  as  slaves  or  burden-bearers,  or  who 
had  feigned  zeal  for  their  Philistine  superiors.  It  is  hardly  sur- 
prising that  the  main  camp  was  thrown  into  confusion  by  the 
sudden  attack  upon  the  outpost.  The  piety  of  the  Israelites  was 
sure  that  an  earthquake  was  felt,  and  this  they  interpreted  as  the 
signal  of  Yahweh's  coming  to  the  aid  of  His  people.  This  party 
in  the  camp  was  therefore  ready  to  strike  a  blow  for  freedom, 
while  the  Philistines,  uncertain  whom  to  trust,  turned  their 
swords  against  friend  and  foe  without  discrimination.  As  Saul 
from  the  not  distant  Geba  heard  the  thunder  of  the  captains  and 
the  shouting,  and  looked  to  see  what  it  meant,  he  saw,  not  the 
dreaded  ranks  ready  to  march,  but  a  mob  surging  hither  and 
yonder  in  aimless  and  ridiculous  confusion. 

The  pious  king  was  not  willing  to  move  without  some  indica- 
tion of  the  will  of  God.  The  priest  Ahitub  was  with  the  army, 
carrying  the  ephod  by  which  the  mind  of  Yahweh  could  be  as- 
1  In  David's  lament,  2  Sam.  I  ". 


THE   EARLY   MONARCHY  119 

certained.1  First  the  troops  were  mustered,  and  the  roll  call 
showed  the  absence  of  Jonathan  and  his  aid.  Then  the  ephod 
was  brought,  and  the  ceremonies  preparatory  to  the  consultation 
of  the  oracle  were  gone  through,  or  at  least  begun.  Meanwhile 
the  confusion  in  the  camp  of  the  enemy  kept  increasing.  The 
circumstances  seemed  to  indicate  the  will  of  Yahweh  plainly 
enough.  Without  waiting  for  the  special  revelation  therefore, 
Saul  decided  to  seize  the  golden  moment.  Directing  the  priest 
to  suspend  the  service,  he  marched  at  the  head  of  his  little  band 
against  the  Philistines.  The  time  was  indeed  opportune;  the 
Philistines  were  in  utter  confusion  ;  the  Hebrews  in  the  camp — 
slaves  or  hangers-on — had  turned  against  their  masters.  The 
host  was  melting  away ;  what  held  together  was  making  its  way 
westward  toward  the  Philistine  country.  Saul  and  his  men  had 
nothing  to  do  but  to  follow  and  slay.  As  the  fleeing  and  pur- 
suing companies  made  their  way  over  the  country,  Saul  was  con- 
tinually reinforced  by  those  Israelites  who  had  kept  in  hiding  or 
had  heretofore  avoided  taking  sides  in  the  war.  The  day  was  a 
day  of  victory  for  Israel. 

The  vividness  with  which  the  narrative  brings  before  us  the 
conditions  of  ancient  Palestinian  warfare  must  be  my  excuse  for 
reproducing  it  at  such  length.  No  other  of  the  battles  of  Israel 
is  so  fully  described  for  us,  but  many  must  have  been  fought  in 
substantially  the  same  manner.  Nor  is  it  the  battle  alone  that 
throws  light  upon  the  condition  of  the  people  at  this  time.  The 
sequel  is  at  least  equally  interesting.  Saul,  as  we  have  seen,  left 
the  consultation  of  the  oracle  incomplete.  But,  either  to  concili- 
ate the  God  whose  oracle  he  was  thus  treating  cavalierly,  or  else 
to  secure  His  favour  by  a  special  example  of  self-denial,  the  king 
laid  upon  his  soldiers  the  vow  of  abstinence.  "  Cursed  be  every 
one  who  shall  eat  food  till  evening,  till  I  be  avenged  on  my  ene- 
mies." The  solemn  Amen  of  the  people  ratified  the  vow.  Doubt- 
less by  this  vow  the  soldiers  were  kept  from  plundering  and  so  de- 
laying or  endangering  the  victory.  But  we  can  hardly  suppose  that 
this  was  Saul's  main  idea.  His  purpose  was  to  impose  a  taboo, 
with  the  idea  that  this  in  itself  was  an  act  well  pleasing  to  God.1 

1  The  ephod  has  been  discussed  above  in  connexion  with  the  story  of 
Gideon.  It  had  some  relation  with  the  sacred  lot  which  we  shall  meet  again. 

1  Vows  of  abstinence  are  not  unusual  among  the  Arabs  in  going  to  war. 
cf.  Procksch,  Die  Blutraeke  bti  den  Vorislamitchen  Arabem  (1899),  p.  5- 


I2O  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

The  effort  did  not  result  as  had  been  anticipated.  The  people, 
exhausted  by  pursuing  and  fighting,  and  unrefreshed  by  food, 
were  unable  to  do  effective  execution  on  their  foes.  Moreover, 
when  the  period  of  taboo  was  ended  by  the  going  down  of  the 
sun,  the  famished  people  flew  upon  the  captured  cattle,  slew  and 
ate.  The  care  in  disposing  of  the  blood,  which  is  enjoined  in  all 
religions,  conspicuously  in  the  religion  of  Israel,  was  found  to  be 
lacking.  Saul  was  the  first  to  regret  this  profane  haste.  He 
ordered  an  altar  to  be  extemporised,  and  warned  the  people  by 
heralds  to  bring  to  it  the  animals  they  had  in  hand,  that  their  eat- 
ing might  be  in  accordance  with  the  customs  of  religion.1 

The  unfortunate  results  of  the  vow  were  not  yet  fully  manifest. 
After  the  refreshment  of  the  soldiers  Saul  proposed  a  night  attack 
upon  what  was  left  of  the  Philistine  force.  The  oracle  was  again 
appealed  to,  but  no  response  could  be  had.  The  conclusion  was 
easily  drawn  that  some  one  had  violated  the  taboo  and  that  Yah- 
weh  was  angry.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  taboo  had  been  violated  ; 
Jonathan,  who  had  not  been  present  at  its  imposition,  had  eaten 
a  little  honey  from  an  abandoned  hive.  When  he  was  informed 
of  the  state  of  the  case  he  ceased  eating,  though  convinced  that 
his  father  had  been  unwise  in  forcing  the  people  to  fight  all  day 
without  food.  Jonathan's  transgression,  unwitting  though  it 
was,  brought  guilt  upon  the  people,  and  the  anger  of  Yahweh 
was  accounted  for.  That  anger  could  be  removed  only  by  the 
death  of  the  offender.  To  discover  the  guilty  person,  the  sacred 
lot  was  again  brought  into  play.  Saul  and  Jonathan  were  in  one 
group,  the  body  of  the  soldiers  in  the  other.  The  lot  fell  upon 

The  fasting  before  a  battle  can  hardly  be  said  to  be  parallel  to  the  present 
case,  Judg.  20  **,  I  Sam.  7'.  One  is  reminded,  however,  of  the  vow  taken 
by  the  zealots  not  to  eat  or  drink  till  they  had  killed  the  Apostle  Paul,  Acts 
23  "-15. 

'The  story  of  the  battle  and  taboo  is  found  in  I  Sam.  I31-I4M.  As  we 
read  it  in  the  received  text,  it  is  disfigured  by  insertions  from  a  later  hand, 
which  make  it  almost  unintelligible.  The  chief  of  these  is  the  account  of  the 
rejection  of  Saul,  13 *"15.  This  is  a  construction  of  religious  bias:  a  later 
writer  believed  that  Saul  was  rejected  by  Yahweh,  the  ground  of  the  belief 
being  that  he  did  not  succeed  in  establishing  a  dynasty.  It  required  little 
logical  power  to  conclude  that  the  rejection  was  because  of  disobedience  to 
Samuel,  the  chosen  organ  of  divine  revelation.  Hence  the  paragraph  in 
question.  Less  disturbing  is  the  insertion  I31*"11,  though  it  gives  an  exag- 
gerated view  of  the  situation.  The  text  of  the  chapters  is  corrupt  in  several 
places,  as  is  pointed  out  in  the  commentaries. 


THE  EARLY  MONARCHY  121 

the  royal  party.  The  people  expostulated  against  going  on,  fear- 
ful of  losing  either  their  king  or  the  hero  of  the  day.  But  Saul 
would  not  consent  to  anything  less  than  the  complete  issue  of  the 
case;  the  lot  was  cast  again  and  fell  upon  Jonathan.1  The  king 
would  doubtless  have  offered  himself  as  the  victim  had  he  been  the 
one  pointed  out.  Jonathan  freely  confessed  his  unwitting  trans- 
gression and  chivalrously  offered  to  die.  But  the  people  could 
not  reconcile  themselves  to  the  death  of  their  hero.  They  tumul- 
tuously  revolted  against  the  carrying  out  of  the  sentence,  and  by 
offering  a  substitute  redeemed  the  prince  from  the  fate  that 
hung  over  him.1  Of  course,  the  night  was  too  far  spent  to  think 
of  further  pursuit  or  battle.  A  further  attempt  against  the  Phil- 
istines seems  not  to  have  been  made  at  this  time. 

The  Hebrew  historians,  like  ancient  historians  in  general,  were 
interested  in  battles  and  the  fortunes  or  misfortunes  of  their  heroes. 
They  do  not  tell  us  what  we  would  most  like  to  know.  We  may 
readily  suppose  that  the  decisive  victory  we  have  been  consider- 
ing gave  substantial  relief  from  Philistine  oppression — it  is  evi- 
dence to  this  effect  that  we  hear  no  more  of  Philistine  Residents 
in  Benjamin.  But  what  Saul  did  for  the  organisation  of  the 
kingdom  is  left  untold.  Probably  social  relations  remained  much 
as  they  had  been,  except  that  an  appeal  could  be  taken  to  the 
king  as  the  judge  of  last  resort.  Saul's  court  and  household  were 
on  the  most  modest  scale,  and  we  hear  nothing  of  his  laying 
taxes  on  his  subjects.  The  extent  of  his  kingdom  is  quite  un- 
known. All  that  we  are  told  of  his  acts  is  that  he  enlisted  every 
valiant  man  in  his  service.  This  implies  that  his  was  a  predatory 
kingdom,  his  own  revenue  and  the  support  of  his  men  coming 
from  the  raids  in  which  he  kept  his  troops  busy.  There  is  an 
intimation  that  David  was  at  one  time  kept  constantly  on  such 
service.  The  Philistines,  the  Canaanites,  the  Amalekites  and 
other  nomad  tribes  would  furnish  objects  enough  for  such  excur- 

•The  passage,  I  Sam.  14 M-*5,  in  the  form  in  which  the  Greek  translat- 
ors read  it,  gives  us  the  best  account  of  the  sacred  lot  (the  urim  and  thummim) 
which  we  have  anywhere  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  does  not  say  in  so  many 
words  that  the  ephod  is  the  receptacle  for  the  oracular  stones,  but  that  is  the 
natural  conclusion.  A  discussion  of  the  Biblical  material  with  reference 
to  Babylonian  analogies  is  given  by  W.  Muss-Arnolt,  "The  Urim  and 
Thummim,"  in  the  Amer.  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages  (1900),  pp.  193-224. 

'That  it  was  a  human  substitute  is  not  expressly  stated  in  the  text,  bat 
all  the  probabilities  point  toward  such  an  one. 


122  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

sions.  Our  present  narrative  adds  to  these  the  Moabites,  the 
Ammonites,  and  the  Syrians,  and  there  is  no  improbability  in 
Saul's  leading  forays  into  the  regions  occupied  by  these  peoples. 
In  the  oldest  document  we  hear  no  more  of  pitched  battles  till 
we  come  to  the  end  of  Saul's  life.  The  interest  of  our  inform- 
ants turns  to  a  new  hero.  David,  a  Bethlehemite  and  a  member 
of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  is  the  man  who,  from  his  introduction  to 
the  court  of  Saul,  becomes  the  central  figure  of  the  story.  It  is 
doubtful  whether  his  tribe  was  included  in  the  kingdom  of  Saul, 
though  the  relations  between  Judah  and  the  rest  of  Israel  were 
friendly.  The  account  of  David's  coming  to  court  reveals  the 
shadow  which  was  already  overhanging  the  house  of  Saul.  The 
abnormal  nervous  constitution  of  the  king,  which  had  shown 
itself  in  unusual  religious  exaltation,  now  manifested  itself  in 
another  way.  The  Spirit  of  Yahweh  began  to  trouble  him  with 
fits  of  depression,  sometimes  rising  to  acute  mania,  in  which,  as 
one  beside  himself,  he  raved  in  his  tent.  The  symptoms  which 
in  his  religious  exaltation  were  interpreted  as  indicating  the  favour 
of  Yahweh  now  gave  rise  to  anxiety,  as  though  his  God  had 
turned  against  him.  His  peace  of  mind  was  gone,  and  his  irre- 
sponsible moods  might  easily  become  dangerous  to  those  about 
him.  The  only  thing  that  his  officers  could  think  of  as  likely 
to  give  relief  was  music,  and  they  therefore  advised  the  employ- 
ment of  a  court  musician.  One  of  them  was  ready  to  recom- 
mend his  friend  David,  who  was  already  a  soldier  of  repute,  a 
man  of  affairs  and  of  good  presence,  as  well  as  a  skilful  player  on 
the  harp.  He  was  sent  for,  and  he  came  to  court  with  a  modest 
gift  sent  by  his  father  to  the  king.1  His  musical  talent  gave 
satisfaction.  Whenever  the  troublesome  Spirit  came  upon  Saul 
in  fits  which  threatened  to  suffocate  him,  then  "  David  would 
take  the  lyre  and  play,  and  Saul  would  breathe  freely  and  be 
well."1  Nor  was  it  the  young  man's  music  alone  that  com- 
mended him.  The  personal  qualities  of  which  his  friend  had 

1  It  was  not  good  form  to  approach  the  king  without  bringing  a  present, 
which  was  generally  in  kind.  Jesse  sent  ten  loaves  of  bread,  a  kid,  and  a 
skin  of  wine. 

*  I  Sam.  1 6  M.  The  verse  adds  and  the  spirit  of  evil  would  depart  from 
Aim.  The  phrase  spirit  of  evil  conveys  a  wrong  impression  to  us.  The 
passage  makes  it  abundantly  clear  that  the  spirit  was  the  Spirit  of  Yahweh, 
but  the  author  calls  it  a  spirit  of  evil  because  it  was  sent  to  inflict  evil  on 

tal 


THE   EARLY   MONARCHY  12$ 

boasted  proved  to  be  real,  and  they  endeared  him  to  his  king. 
Saul  loved  him,  we  are  told,  and  made  him  his  adjutant,  thus 
giving  him  a  place  where  he  might  always  be  near  his  person. 
The  judgment  of  Saul  was  shared  by  the  people  at  large,  with 
whom  David  became  a  favourite. 

The  mind  of  princes  is  proverbially  fickle,  and  in  the  morbid 
state  in  which  Saul  was,  we  can  hardly  wonder  that  his  love 
soon  gave  place  to  jealousy.  The  consciousness  that  his  health 
was  undermined  would  only  increase  his  sensitiveness,  and  the 
sensitiveness  would  not  long  lack  occasion.  What  finally  affected 
him  we  can  no  longer  make  out — the  story  of  Goliath  is  a  late 
invention.  The  earliest  of  our  sources  relates  how  on  the  return 
of  the  army  from  one  of  their  forays,  the  women  danced  out  to 
meet  the  victors  singing  the  couplet : 

"  Saul  slew  his  thousands, 
And  David  his  ten  thousands." 

But  the  account  is  not  easy  to  credit.  The  couplet  is  probably 
one  current  at  a  later  time,  to  express  the  comparative  merits  of 
the  two  kings.  Native  good  sense  would  keep  the  people  from 
such  a  breach  of  etiquette  as  they  would  commit  by  singing  such 
a  song  in  Saul's  presence.  Even  supposing  that  David's  youth 
gave  him  especial  advantages  in  the  eyes  of  the  singers,  they 
must  have  known  that  extravagant  praise  would  bring  the  hero 
into  an  equivocal  position.  Nor  would  David's  own  modesty 
have  permitted  this  preference  of  himself  to  his  prince. 

We  are  compelled  to  confess  our  ignorance  of  any  particular 
occasion  for  jealousy  ;  the  jealousy  itself  was  a  serious  fact.  In 
one  of  the  insane  fits  which  came  upon  the  king,  he  attempted 
his  servant's  life — hurling  the  javelin  at  him  as  he  played.  This 
failing  (and  perhaps  being  excused  as  a  deed  done  under  an  in- 
sane impulse),  the  king  removed  David  from  close  attendance 
upon  his  person,  and  gave  him  a  command  in  the  field.  His  hope 
was  that  the  accidents  of  war  would  take  his  rival  out  of  the  way. 
But  David  throve  upon  the  accidents  of  war ;  they  served  only 
to  bring  out  his  prowess  and  his  ability  as  a  commander.  The 
devotion  of  the  people  became  more  marked  than  ever. 

The  element  of  romance  was  infused  into  the  situation  by 
Saul's  daughter  Michal,  whose  heart  was  captivated  by  the  youth- 
ful hero.  Her  affection  could  not  be  concealed  from  those  about 


124  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

her,  and,  coming  to  the  ears  of  the  king,  it  suggested  a  way  to 
get  rid  of  the  now  hated  officer.  The  courtiers  were  directed  to 
sound  David  on  the  question  of  becoming  the  king's  son-in-law. 
When  David,  with  modesty  and  good  sense,  explains  that  he  can- 
not pay  the  price  which  the  king  would  have  the  right  to  expect 
for  his  daughter,  he  is  told  that  the  king  will  take  his  pay  in  the 
lives  of  his  enemies.  One  hundred  of  these,  vouched  for  in  a  way 
that  will  satisfy  the  king,  is  all  the  dowry  that  is  asked.1  The 
secret  hope  of  the  bargainer  is,  that  the  aspirant  will  pay  with 
his  own  life  for  the  one  hundred  which  he  plans  to  take.  The 
event  brought  disappointment ;  the  price  was  paid  at  the  time 
stipulated,  and  the  king  had  no  excuse  for  withholding  his 
daughter. 

But  now  the  hostility  breaks  out  violently  and  openly.  The 
king,  maddened  by  his  failure,  sends  to  the  house  where  David 
has  just  taken  possession  of  his  bride.  Not  able  to  wait  until  morn- 
ing to  cool  his  rage,  he  commands  his  satellites  to  violate  the  pri- 
vacy of  the  home — a  gross  outrage,  according  to  Oriental  ideas  as 
well  as  our  own.  They  are  to  bring  David  to  him,  so  that  he  may 
personally  take  vengeance.  But  the  king's  temper  had  not  escaped 
the  observation  of  his  daughter.  She  is  in  no  mind  to  be  mocked 
with  a  husband,  and  therefore  urges  David  to  escape  while  it  is 
yet  time.  With  her  own  hand  she  lets  him  down  from  an  unob- 
served window,  and  he  disappears  in  the  darkness.  To  gain  time 
for  him,  she  uses  the  Teraphim — the  household  god  which  at  this 
period  stood  at  every  Israelite  hearth.*  This  we  must  suppose  to 
be  a  rude  image  in  human  form.  Wrapping  this  effigy  in  a  gar- 
ment, as  the  Oriental  wraps  himself  when  he  sleeps,  she  places  it  in 
David's  bed.  She  then  meets  the  messengers  who  demand  her 
husband,  and  tells  them  he  is  ill.  As  the  king  will  brook  no  de- 

1  The  fact  already  noted,  that  the  Philistines  were  the  only  uncircumcised 
people  of  Palestine,  accounts  for  the  extraordinary  nature  of  the  vouchers 
stipulated. 

That  a  father  expected  to  be  paid  for  his  daughters,  is  evident  from  the 
case  of  Laban,  as  well  as  from  the  regulations  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant 
(Ex.  2IT-U,  22").  On  Arabic  analogies,  cf.  Wellhausen,  "Die  Ehe  bei 
den  Arabern  "  in  the  Nachrichten  der  Gotting.  Geselhch.  der  Wissenschaften 
(1893)  p.  433  ff. 

1  The  Teraphim  appear  in  the  history  of  Jacob,  where  they  are  mildly  dis- 
approved. So  late  as  Hosea  they  seem  to  be  associated  with  the  altar  of 
Yahweh,  Hos.  3*.  cf.  also  Judg.  17',  i8"ff. 


THE  EARLY   MONARCHY  12$ 

lay,  the  stratagem  avails  little.     Michal  is  compelled  to  prevail' 
cate  in  order  to  save  her  own  life  from  her  angry  father.1 

With  this  incident,  David  becomes  the  leading  character  of  the 
story.  We  hear  little  more  of  Saul,  except  that  his  pursuit  of  his 
rival  becomes  a  monomania.  The  most  melancholy  incident  of 
his  career — until  the  supreme  struggle  in  which  he  loses  his  life — 
is  the  massacre  of  the  priests  of  Nob.  The  town  thus  named  was 
not  far  from  Gibeah,  and  was  a  religious  centre.  All  members  of 
the  clan  that  possessed  it  seem  to  have  had  priestly  qualifications. 
Their  chief  is  identified,  on  somewhat  precarious  grounds,  with 
a  grandson  of  Eli.  When  David  was  on  his  flight  from  Saul,  he 
received  aid  and  comfort  from  this  priest.  The  report  was 
brought  to  Saul  at  the  time  when  he  was  irritated  to  the  pitch  of 
insanity  by  David's  escape.  Certainly  the  kindness  of  the  priest 
looked  like  more  than  ordinary  friendship.  Suspecting  conspir- 
acy, the  king  summoned  all  the  adult  males  of  the  clan — eighty- 
five  men  in  number.  Without  listening  to  their  defence,  he  had 
them  all  put  to  death.  The  account  which  has  come  down  to  us 
affirms  that  he  also  sacked  the  town,  and  put  the  whole  popula- 
tion to  the  sword,  without  sparing  age  or  sex.1  This  outbreak  of 

1  The  chapters  of  I  Samuel  which  relate  the  fortunes  of  David  in  this  pe- 
riod present  complicated  problems,  some  of  which  still  await  solution.  The 
repeated  flights  and  escapes  of  David  show  that  more  than  two  accounts 
have  been  combined.  In  the  story  of  Goliath,  the  fact  of  interpolation  is 
made  clear  by  the  testimony  of  the  Greek  version.  The  story  in  any  form 
is  legendary — the  representation  of  Saul's  abject  terror,  of  David's  lack  of 
experience,  of  Saul's  ignorance  of  the  lad,  of  Jonathan's  sudden  friendship, 
speak  too  loudly  to  be  misunderstood. 

I  have  passed  by  the  second  account  of  Saul's  rejection  (i  Sam.  15)  as 
also  thoroughly  unhistorical.  But  I  do  not  mean  to  affirm  that  there  is  no 
real  incident  at  the  basis  of  the  story.  The  sacrifice  of  Agag  "  before  Yah- 
weh  "  at  Gilgal  is  quite  comprehensible  as  the  fulfilment  of  a  vow  made  on 
going  into  battle — the  parallel  case  of  Jephthah  has  already  been  consid- 
ered ;  cf.  Schwally,  Kriegsaltertiimcr,  I,  p.  34. 

'The  story  of  the  massacre,  I  Sam.  22*-lt-  bears  all  the  marks  of  historic- 
ity. The  section  introductory  to  it  which  relates  David's  interview  with 
the  priest,  may  have  been  influenced  by  the  author's  desire  to  set  David  in 
a  favourable  light.  The  giving  of  the  consecrated  bread  is,  to  his  mind,  a 
divine  indication  that  David  is  already  a  consecrated  person — the  king  bore 
that  character  as  we  have  seen.  It  may  be  doubted  whether  the  priest  was 
as  innocent  as  the  narrative  would  make  him  out. 

For  historical  purposes,  we  are  obliged  to  pass  by  the  account  of  David's 
flight  to  Samuel  at  Ramah  (i918~*4),  and  also  the  elaborate  intercession  of 
Jonathan  in  chapter  20. 


126  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

rage  is  only  too  comprehensible.  But  it  does  not  seem  seriously 
to  have  weakened  the  king's  hold  upon  his  people. 

Saul  maintained  himself  against  external  and  internal  foes  for 
some  years.  His  early  chronicler  affirms  that  he  made  war 
against  Moab,  Ammon,  Edom,  the  kings  of  Zoba  and  the  Philis- 
tines, and  that  wherever  he  turned  he  was  victorious^  Such  an 
impression  could  not  have  been  made  had  the  king's  life  been 
mainly  taken  up  with  fits  of  madness  and  fruitless  expeditions 
after  a  runaway  servant.  Perhaps  we  may  conclude  something 
from  the  final  effort  of  the  Philistines.  They  found  it  impossible 
to  invade  the  country  of  Benjamin  directly,  because  Saul  too 
vigilantly  guarded  all  the  approaches.  Hence  their  march  to  the 
Great  Plain,  where  they  could  use  their  chariots.  The  account 
which  has  come  down  to  us  makes  a  digression  to  tell  of  the  for- 
tunes of  David.  He  and  his  men  had  been  ordered  by  Achish, 
in  whose  service  they  were,  to  march  with  the  Philistine  forces. 
The  dilemma  in  which  he  was  placed — he  must  either  fight  against 
his  kinsmen  or  betray  the  cause  in  which  he  was  enlisted — was 
removed  by  the  suspicions  of  the  Philistine  generals.  Doubtless 
they  remembered  the  experience  at  Michmash,  when  their  slaves 
and  auxiliaries  turned  against  them. 

Later  story  threw  over  the  last  days  of  Saul's  life  the  shadow 
of  his  coming  doom.  In  this  narrative  a  necromancer  is  made  to 
bring  back  Samuel  from  the  realm  of  shades  to  pronounce  again 
the  sentence  of  rejection.  The  interview  is  the  final  scene  in 
the  life  of  a  rebel  against  God,  delivered  over  to  despair  by  the 
shade  of  the  prophet  whom  he  has  disobeyed.  The  chapter  is  of 
the  utmost  value  as  showing  popular  ideas  concerning  intercourse 
with  the  dead.  But  its  pitiless  consistency  in  following  a  theo- 
logical idea  deprives  it  of  all  value  for  the  history  of  Saul.* 

The  Philistines  had  mustered  all  the  force  they  could  command, 
with  the  determination  to  crush  out  the  independence  of  Israel. 
There  was  nothing  left  for  Saul  except  to  lead  a  folorn  hope. 

1 1  Sam.  14  *T.  The  verse  is  the  concluding  panegyric  of  an  ancient  life 
of  Saul.  For  Edom  in  this  passage,  however,  we  should  probably  read 
Aram.  Edom  was  too  remote  to  be  reached  by  Saul. 

*To  the  older  commentators  the  story  presented  difficulties  of  the  gravest 
sort,  for  that  the  author  believed  in  the  actual  raising  of  Samuel's  shade 
must  be  obvious.  The  difficulties  disappear  when  we  discover  that  the  chap- 
ter is  only  the  dramatic  embodiment  of  an  idea.  It  is  poetic  consistency  to 
make  Samuel  dead  repeat  the  rejection  pronounced  by  Samuel  living. 


THE   EARLY    MONARCHY  I2/ 

He  died  fighting  for  the  cause  to  which  he  had  given  so  large  a 
part  of  his  life.  Two  accounts  of  his  death  have  come  down  to 
us.  One  asserts  that  he  saw  his  defeat  and  the  death  of  his  sons, 
and  that  he  was  himself  wounded.  In  these  desperate  circum- 
stances he  urged  his  armour-bearer  to  despatch  him,1  lest  he  fall 
alive  into  the  hands  of  the  enemy.  When  this  officer  refused  to 
obey  the  order  he  threw  himself  upon  his  own  sword.  The  other 
account  makes  an  Amalekite  camp  follower  give  him  the  finishing 
stroke.  It  may  be  doubted  whether  either  is  accurate.  All  we 
can  assert  with  confidence  is  that  Saul  and  the  able-bodied  men 
of  his  house  died  on  the  field  of  honour. 

For  the  time  the  cause  seemed  lost ;  but  we  may  well  believe 
that  its  hero  had  not  lived  in  vain.  He  marked  out  the  path  in 
which  his  greater  successor  was  to  follow.  Later  times  judged 
him  too  severely,  making  success  the  test  of  the  divine  favour. 
The  light  we  have  on  his  career  is  uncertain  and  perplexing,  part- 
ly because  it  was  outshone  by  the  brilliancy  of  David's  history, 
partly  because  Saul  himself  was  a  perplexing  character.  His 
whole-hearted  devotion  to  the  unity  and  independence  of  Israel, 
and  his  sincere  piety,  were  offset  by  less  admirable  qualities. 
The  jealousy  that  tormented  him  is  the  natural  failing  of  a  self- 
made  man.  The  ruthlessness  of  his  treatment  of  Nob  shows  a 
temptation  to  which  almost  every  absolute  ruler  at  some  time 
gives  way.  Even  his  zeal  for  Israel  was  not  always  a  zeal  accord- 
ing to  knowledge,  for,  contrary  to  right  and  the  common  con- 
science, he  endeavoured  to  exterminate  the  Gibeonites. 

These  Canaanites  were  protected  by  a  solemn  league  and  cove- 
nant. Saul,  in  his  zeal  for  Israel,  thought  the  covenant  could  be 
disregarded,  and  took  steps  to  wipe  out  the  foreigners.  How  far 
he  went,  or  what  checked  him,  we  do  not  know.  A  famine  in 
the  time  of  David  was  interpreted  as  a  vindication  of  the  rights 
of  the  allies — Yahweh  was  not  unmindful  of  the  oath  to  which  he 
was  made  a  party.  The  blood  brought  by  Saul  upon  his  house 
was  therefore  purged  by  the  hanging  up  of  his  sons  before  Yah- 
weh in  Gibeon.  We  are  not  to  infer  that  the  conscience  of  Saul 
was  altogether  seared.  His  obtuseness  was  the  obtuseness  of  the 
times  in  which  he  lived. 

The  able-bodied  men  of  Saul's  family  perished  with  him  in 

1  Cf.  the  case  of  Abimelech  already  described,  and  the  parallel  instance  of 
•  Babylonian  king,  Keilinich.  Bibliothek,  II,  p.  137. 


128  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

the  battle  of  Gilboa.  Abner,  Saul's  general,  seems  to  have 
found  discretion  the  better  part  of  valour.  Himself  escaping,  he 
carried  Ishbaal — Saul's  surviving  son,  a  weakling  in  body  and 
mind — across  the  Jordan.  Here,  at  the  ancient  Israelite  town  of 
Mahanaim,  he  was  able  to  set  up  the  semblance  of  a  kingdom, 
with  Ishbaal  as  its  head.  The  Philistines  were  masters  of  the 
country  between  the  Jordan  and  the  sea,  but  they  seem  to  have 
allowed  Ishbaal  some  sort  of  jurisdiction  on  payment  of  tribute. 
David  was  rising  into  prominence  in  the  south,  but  he  was  to 
appearance  wholly  devoted  to  the  Philistine  interest.  It  could 
only  give  pleasure  to  the  overlords  to  see  the  two  subject  king- 
doms keep  each  other  in  check,  and  exhaust  their  strength  by 
making  war  on  each  other. 

Before  turning  to  David  we  may  notice  with  sympathy  the 
men  of  Jabesh  Gilead.  After  the  battle  of  Gilboa,  the  victors 
sent  the  armour  of  Saul  to  their  chief  temple  as  a  trophy.  His 
body  they  hung  up  in  derision  on  the  walls  of  Beth-shan.  The 
men  of  Jabesh  were  not  unmindful  of  their  debt  to  their  deliver- 
er. In  a  night  expedition  they  rescued  the  bones  of  Saul  from 
the  ignominious  exposure,  brought  them  to  their  own  town,  and 
buried  them  under  a  conspicuous  tree,  with  appropriate  expres- 
sions of  grief.  Not  all  republics  are  ungrateful. 


CHAPTER  VIE 

DAVID 

WE  have  already  met  the  son  of  Jesse  at  the  court  of  Saul, 
whither  he  came  as  court  musician.  That  a  celebrated  warrior 
may  also  be  a  skilled  musician  is  proved  by  many  examples  in 
history.  Tradition  has  delighted  to  embellish  the  career  of  this 
warrior-minstrel,  so  that  it  is  difficult  for  us  to  discover  the 
actual  course  of  his  life.  If  we  content  ourselves  with  selecting 
what  seems  most  authentic  in  the  story  that  has  come  down  to 
us,  we  shall  have  a  result  something  as  follows : 

The  young  officer  was  placed  by  Saul  first  in  a  confidential 
position  where  he  became  acquainted  with  the  life  of  the  court. 
He  was  then  given  a  post  of  danger  where  he  was  schooled  in  the 
art  of  war.  The  growing  jealousy  of  the  king  taught  him  cir- 
cumspection. When  he  was  at  last  compelled  to  flee  the  court 
and  to  depend  on  himself,  he  was  able  to  cope  with  adversity,  to 
find  resources  in  himself,  and  to  maintain  his  influence  over  the 
turbulent  spirits  which  came  to  share  his  outlawry.  The  nucleus 
of  the  band  of  which  he  soon  became  the  head  was  formed  by  his 
own  kinsmen.  In  an  unsettled  state  of  society  such  as  then  pre- 
vailed, a  masterful  spirit  easily  becomes  the  head  of  a  band  like- 
minded  with  himself.1  Jephthah  is  a  case  in  point.  The  king- 
dom of  Damascus  was  founded  later  by  such  a  freebooter. 

The  Wilderness  of  Judah — the  country  along  the  western  shore 
of  the  Dead  Sea — is  adapted  to  furnish  refuge  to  such  bands. 
Descending  upon  the  cultivated  country  in  a  sudden  raid,  the 
troop  disappears  in  the  trackless  waste,  only  to  make  a  new 
attack  in  an  unexpected  quarter.  To  the  south  the  wilderness 
of  Kadesh  offers  additional  security.  Edom  and  Amalek  were 
hereditary  enemies  of  David,  and  the  numerous  Bedawin  clans, 
often  hostile  to  each  other,  were  just  strong  enough  to  make  the 

1  Arabic  history  shows  numerous  similar  cases,  of  which  one  is  the  famoof 
poet  Imru'1-Kais,  cited  by  Procksch,  Blutracht,  p.  32. 

no 


I3O  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

work  of  plunder  interesting.  Blackmail  has  always  been  re- 
garded as  legitimate  in  border  warfare,  and  that  David  did  not 
hesitate  to  levy  it  is  shown  by  the  anecdote  of  Nabal.  This  man 
was  one  of  the  great  sheep-masters  of  Southern  Palestine,  a  Caleb- 
ite  by  race,  his  tribe  not  yet  reckoned  a  part  of  Judah.  His 
home  was  Carmel,  in  a  rolling  country,  part  of  which  is  cultiva- 
ble, the  rest  furnishes  excellent  pasture.1 

The  time  of  sheep-shearing  is  a  time  of  feasting  and  rejoicing. 
The  Bedawy  Sheikh  still  expects  generous  hospitality,  or  a  gift 
from  the  shepherd  at  this  season.  David,  therefore,  sent  an  em- 
bassy to  Nabal  asking  for  Baksheesh.  The  ground  given  was 
first,  that  his  band  had  respected  Nabal's  rights,  not  exercising 
the  right  of  the  strongest ;  secondly,  they  had  protected  Nabal's 
property  from  other  wandering  bands  which  might  have  been 
troublesome.  What  David  claimed  was  in  fact  protection  money, 
only  he  asked  it  in  kind  instead  of  in  coin.  But  Nabal,  strong 
in  the  consciousness  of  possession,  turned  the  messengers  away 
with  a  surly  reply:  "  Who  is  David  ?  Who  is  the  son  of  Jesse? 
There  are  many  slaves  in  these  days  who  run  away  from  their 
masters.  And  I  must  take  my  bread  and  my  wine  and  the  flesh 
which  I  have  killed  for  my  shearers,  and  give  them  to  men  of 
whom  I  know  nothing  !  ' '  The  taunt  and  the  refusal  aroused 
David's  anger,  and  hastily  arming  a  part  of  his  force  he  was  on 
the  point  of  quenching  his  rage  in  the  blood  of  the  man  who  had 
insulted  him. 

The  good  sense  with  which  Nabal's  wife  met  the  crisis,  and 
the  skill  with  which  she  dissuaded  David  from  staining  his  con- 
science with  blood,  may  be  read  in  the  narrative.  To  us  they 
are  of  less  importance  than  the  glimpse  we  get  into  the  life  of  the 
freebooter.  Such  a  band  as  David's — tradition  makes  it  to  have 
reached  six  hundred  men — must  have  been  driven  to  all  sorts  of 
shifts  to  keep  alive.  Many  a  sheep-master  of  the  region  must 
have  been  taxed  to  supply  their  wants.  In  many  cases  the  towns 
must  have  purchased  David's  help  against  the  Amalekite  or  his 
kindred.  No  disgrace  attached  to  the  captain  who  entered  into 
such  an  arrangement,  or  who  insisted  upon  it.  He  was  giving 
as  well  as  receiving  a  favour,  and  we  know  that  when  David  ob- 

1  Carmel,  Maon,  and  Ziph,  which  are  mentioned  in  this  part  of  David'f 
history,  are  all  identified  in  the  region  southeast  of  Hebron ;  compare  G 
A.  Smith's  description,  Historical  Geography,  p.  306  note. 


DAVID  13? 

tained  booty  he  was  free-handed  with  it,  making  presents  in  nis 
turn  to  the  towns  which  had  dealt  generously  with  him. 

It  is  difficult  to  say  how  much  Saul  added  to  the  perplexity  of 
the  situation.  Tradition  makes  the  Ziphites  so  anxious  to  be 
rid  of  David  that  they  invited  Saul  to  come  against  him,  them- 
selves acting  as  spies  for  the  army.  Two  separate  accounts  are 
preserved  to  us  illustrating  David's  magnanimity  toward  his 
enemy.  The  more  original  seems  to  be  the  one  which  makes 
David,  when  Saul  is  on  his  track,  steal  into  the  king's  camp  at 
night  accompanied  by  a  single  follower.  The  guards  are  all 
asleep ;  the  defenceless  king  lies  at  their  feet ;  Abishai  is  eager 
to  pin  him  to  the  earth  with  a  single  thrust  of  the  spear.  But 
David  takes  seriously  the  divinity  that  doth  hedge  a  king.  Saul 
is  to  him  "  the  Anointed  of  Yahweh,"  a  consecrated  person 
whom  to  harm  would  be  sacrilege.  Hence  he  refuses  the  per- 
mission desired  by  his  attendant,  and  contents  himself  with  tak- 
ing objects  enough  to  show  that  he  has  been  in  the  camp.  The 
succeeding  revulsion  of  feeling  on  the  part  of  Saul  is  just  what  we 
might  expect ;  and  on  the  other  hand  it  is  not  strange  that  David 
should  distrust  his  enemy's  good-will  and  decline  to  put  himself 
in  his  power.  The  account  possesses  verisimilitude,  therefore, 
and  it  presents  David  in  the  light  in  which  he  was  viewed  by  his 
contemporaries.1 

Tired  of  the  precarious  struggle  in  the  wilderness,  David  at 
length  resolved  on  the  only  course  open  to  him.  He  could 
enlist  under  the  banner  of  a  more  powerful  chief,  one  with  re- 
sources enough  to  insure  him  support,  and  with  territory  enough 
to  give  him  employment.  Such  a  chief  he  found  in  Achish, 
king  of  Gath.  The  location  of  Gath  is  as  yet  unknown  to  us, 
but  we  gather  that  its  territory  was  exposed  to  the  raids  of  the 
Bedawin,  and  that  only  a  soldier  who  had  experience  in  border 
warfare  could  hold  them  in  check.  Achish  at  first  planned  to 
make  David  captain  of  his  body-guard,  and  to  keep  him  at  the 
capital.  But  the  arrangement  proved  impracticable.  The  Is- 
raelites of  David's  command  would  hardly  be  conciliatory  to 
the  Philistines  among  whom  they  were  settled.  David  himself 

1  The  account  is  contained  in  I  Sam.  26.  The  parallel,  chapter  24,  is  a 
much  less  probable  narrative.  The  difficulty  in  receiving  either  as  strictly 
historical  arises  from  the  improbability  of  Saul's  being  so  far  away  from  his 
own  domain  in  chase  of  a  fugitive  band  which  was  doing  him  no  harm. 


132  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

had  fought  against  Philistines  in  the  old  days,  and  there  were 
probably  blood  feuds  to  be  settled.  Furthermore,  it  was  not  to 
David's  taste  to  be  always  under  the  king's  eye.  He  had  been 
his  own  master  too  long  to  become  a  courtier  again.  Moved  by 
these  considerations,  he  proposed  that  he  should  receive  one  of 
the  outlying  places — town  and  fortress — where  he  could  more 
easily  reach  the  border  ruffians. 

In  this  way  he  became  Emir  of  Ziklag,  a  town  in  the  edge  of 
the  desert,  and  here  his  men,  with  wives  and  children,  made  their 
abode.  To  a  late  date  the  kings  of  Judah  traced  their  title  to 
the  town  to  the  gift  of  Achish,  and  we  may  therefore  suppose  the 
place  to  have  been  an  enclave  in  Philistine  territory.  Here  David 
acted  the  part  of  a  robber  chief.  He  and  his  men  were  constantly 
raiding  the  neighbouring  nomads,  carrying  off  their  cattle,  and 
putting  the  people  to  the  sword.  Achish  received  part  of  the 
booty,  and  heard  with  pleasure  that  David  was  carrying  the  war 
into  the  borders  of  Judah  and  its  affiliated  clans.1  The  estrange- 
ment between  David  and  his  own  people  thus  seemed  to  be 
complete,  and  his  devotion  to  his  new  master  was  regarded  as  es- 
tablished. So  great  was  the  king's  confidence,  that,  as  we  have 
seen,  he  called  David  to  follow  him  in  the  great  Philistine  cam- 
paign against  northern  Israel.  The  embarrassing  situation  was 
happily  relieved  by  the  suspicion  of  the  Philistine  leaders. 

Two  can  play  at  the  game  of  war,  and  fortune  cannot  be 
expected  always  to  favour  the  same  side.  The  Amalekites  had 
reason  to  seek  revenge.1  Discovering  the  unprotected  state  of 
Ziklag  when  David  and  his  men  were  called  to  the  war,  they  at- 
tacked the  town  and  gained  possession  of  it.  The  houses  were 
burned,  and  everything  of  value  was  carried  off,  including  the 
women  and  children,  whom  the  captors  no  doubt  expected  to 

1  David  himself  is  represented  (i  Sam.  27  10)  as  saying  that  he  had  raided 
the  Negeb  of  Judah,  the  Negeb  of  the  Jerachmeelites,  and  the  Negeb  of  the 
Kenites.  The  Kenites  are  known  to  have  been  allies  of  Israel  from  the 
time  of  Moses.  Jerachmeel  was  later  absorbed  in  Judah.  Both  clans  are 
named  among  those  who  received  presents  from  David,  r  Sam.  30 1*-*1.  The 
proper  home  of  Judah  seems  to  have  been  Bethlehem,  while  Hebron  was 
the  seat  of  Caleb.  Only  by  bearing  these  facts  in  mind  do  we  get  a  correct 
idea  of  the  disintegration  of  the  country. 

1  This  desert  clan  had  been  in  feud  with  Israel  ever  since  the  exodus. 
Their  appearance  in  this  narrative  is  proof  enough  that  they  had  not  been 
exterminated  by  Saul,  as  is  affirmed  by  i  Sam.  13. 


DAVID  133 

sell  in  the  Egyptian  market  as  slaves.  The  prompt  pursuit  by 
David,  the  good  fortune  that  threw  into  his  hands  a  slave-boy 
able  to  guide  him  to  the  camp  of  the  plunderers,  the  successful 
attack — all  are  graphically  set  forth  in  the  Biblical  narrative.  A 
good  impression  of  David's  executive  ability  is  given  by  the 
promptness  of  his  pursuit,  and  by  the  decision  with  which  he 
settled  the  quarrel  among  his  men  about  the  booty.  His  own 
share  of  the  spoil  he  used  to  win  the  hearts  of  the  Sheikhs  in  Ju- 
dah  and  the  allied  clans — reminding  us  of  Mohammed's  policy 
after  the  battle  of  Honein.1 

The  imagination  of  later  times  was  pleased  to  bring  David 
news  of  the  death  of  Saul  by  the  mouth  of  an  Amalekite,  whose 
hands  also  bore  the  royal  crown  and  bracelet.  The  obvious  im- 
possibility of  his  story  compels  us  to  reject  it.  Probably  no  one 
at  this  time  thought  of  David  as  Saul's  successor.  In  his  own 
mind  there  may  have  been  hope  of  something  of  the  kind.  The 
duty  at  hand  was  to  strengthen  himself  in  his  own  region  of  Ju- 
dah.  Here,  the  advantages  of  having  a  strong  man  as  their  ally 
had  been  brought  home  to  the  Sheikhs  by  David's  presents,  as 
well  as  by  his  protection.  The  career  of  Saul  had  familiarised 
the  people  with  the  idea  of  a  monarchy.  No  opposition  on  the 
part  of  the  Philistines  was  to  be  feared,  for  David  was  their  trib- 
utary, and  their  power  had  just  been  firmly  established  by  the 
victory  at  Gilboa.  The  more  complete  organisation  of  Judah 
would  (as  it  seemed  to  them)  put  more  power  into  their  hands. 
They  could  hardly  imagine  David  succeeding  where  Saul  had 
failed.  We  can  understand  their  looking  on  with  indifference,  if 
not  with  encouragement,  while  he  negotiated  with  the  clans. 

The  most  important  city  in  the  region  was  Hebron,  the  capi- 
tal of  Caleb,  or  possibly  of  an  alliance  of  clans  afterward  merged 
in  Judah.  Hither  came  David  with  his  trusty  soldiers,  and  was 
recognised  as  king  by  the  Sheikhs.1  No  doubt  he  secured  the 

1  The  reader  may  supplement  the  account  of  this  part  of  David's  life  by 
such  other  sections  of  the  Biblical  text  as  commend  themselves  to  his  judg- 
ment. With  the  adventures  in  the  Wilderness  of  Judah,  and  the  migration 
to  Gath,  there  seems  to  be  no  room  for  those  at  the  stronghold  of  Adullam, 
I  Sam.  22  '•*,  23.  We  must  suppose  these  displaced  in  the  compilation. 

1  It  is  perhaps  not  too  bold  to  see  in  the  name  of  the  city  (Confederoty)  a 
reminiscence  of  its  composite  population.  The  name  Kirjath-arba  (City  of 
Four),  might  be  traced  to  the  same  origin ;  but  this  name  occurs  only  is 
very  late  documents,  and  any  argument  from  it  is  precarious. 


134  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

citadel,  or  built  one,  where  his  retainers  could  maintain  him, 
should  the  popular  sentiment  undergo  a  change.  From  Hebron 
he  could  easily  extend  his  sway  over  the  Edomite  clans  on  the 
south  and  over  Judah,  which  lay  between  him  and  Jerusalem.  If 
he  was  himself  a  Judahite,  his  own  clan  would  in  fact  cling  to  him 
among  the  first.  The  whole  region  had  suffered  the  ills  of  tribal 
society  where  every  clan  is  against  every  other.  The  king's 
peace  is  to  such  a  people  more  than  an  empty  name.  The  whole 
period  on  which  we  look  back — from  the  El  Amarna  time  down 
— had  been  conspicuously  lacking  in  peace ;  there  was  no  king 
in  Israel,  and  every  man  did  that  which  was  right  in  his  own 
eyes.  A  king  promised  a  stable  government.  If  he  or  his  body- 
guard were  guilty  of  occasional  acts  of  oppression,  the  mass  of 
the  people  would  yet  be  better  off  than  where  they  had  no  pro- 
tector. The  king  must  keep  external  invasion  from  the  boun- 
daries, and  he  must  repress  private  warfare  within  his  domain. 
Some  such  thoughts  as  these  passed  through  the  minds  of  the 
burghers  of  Hebron  as  they  welcomed  David  and  anointed  him 
at  their  sanctuary.  King  of  Caleb  and  Judah  was  what  he  as- 
pired to  be.  But  he  aspired  to  a  nominal  headship  over  other 
parts  of  Israel — so  we  conclude  from  his  message  of  gratitude  to 
the  men  of  Jabesh  Gilead.  It  would  be  something  for  them  in 
their  disorganised  condition  to  feel  that  there  was  the  tie  of 
blood  between  them  and  the  able  and  energetic  king  of  Hebron. 
Lack  of  a  chronology  in  our  sources  embarrasses  us  in  attempt- 
ing to  follow  the  history  at  this  point.  Did  David  proceed  at 
once  to  bring  Benjamin  under  his  rule?  Against  this1  may  be 
urged  the  position  of  Jerusalem,  as  yet  unsubdued,  and  the  dif- 
ficulty which  David  would  experience  in  carrying  on  a  war  so 
far  from  his  base  of  supplies.  Obtuse  as  the  Philistines  were — or 
self-confident  if  one  chooses — they  would  surely  take  the  alarm 
by  the  time  David  had  consolidated  his  power  over  the  country 
south  of  Jerusalem.  We  may  conjecture,  then,  that  the  Philistines 
did  take  the  alarm  before  the  conquest  of  Jerusalem  or  of  Benja- 
min. They  made  Bethlehem  their  objective  point  in  one  cam- 
paign as  we  know.  At  another  time  they  attacked  Keilah,  a 

1  Which  seems  to  be  the  theory  of  the  Biblical  writer,  2  Sam.  2-4,  where, 
following  immediately  on  the  anointing  at  Hebron,  we  find  the  war  with 
Abner.  Compare  the  article  of  S.  A.  Cook:  "Notes  on  the  Composition 
of  Second  Samuel,"  in  the  Am.  Jour.  Sent.  Lang.,  XVI.,  pp.  145-177. 


DAVID  135 

border  town  of  Judah.  David  was  obliged  to  take  refuge  in  the 
fortress  of  Adullam.  From  this  stronghold  he  was  able  to  hang 
upon  the  flanks  of  the  enemy  and  finally  to  compel  them  to  re- 
treat. The  relief  of  Keilah  was  one  of  his  feats.  The  killing  of 
Goliath  in  a  duel  by  one  of  his  followers  probably  belongs  in 
the  same  connexion.1  Other  exploits  may  belong  with  this— 
the  most  pleasing  is  the  one  where  three  of  David's  men  break 
through  the  lines  of  the  Philistines  to  bring  him  a  drink  of  water 
from  Bethlehem.* 

By  what  finesse  David  lulled  his  foes  into  security  till  he  could 
strike  the  decisive  blow  we  are  not  told.  The  time  came  when 
he  could  strike  such  a  blow.  In  fact,  two  capital  engagements 
are  recorded,  one  at  Baal  Perazim,  where  the  Philistine  idols, 
which  they  had  brought  into  the  battle  with  them,  fell  into  the 
hands  of  Israel;  the  other  at  Bekaim,  where  an  omen  of  Yahweh's 
presence  was  taken  from  the  "sound  of  marching  in  the  tops  of 
the  Balsams" — doubtless  sacred  trees  in  which  the  God  was 
thought  to  reside.  The  result  of  the  campaign  seems  to  have 
been  deliverance  from  the  Philistine  overlordship.* 

1  In  Arab  warfare  it  is  very  common  for  a  warrior  to  advance  from  the 
ranks  and  challenge  anyone  from  the  opposing  army  to  meet  him  in  single 
combat.  The  early  history  of  Islam  furnishes  several  instances. 

1  The  reason  for  putting  these  exploits  here  is  that  Adullam  must  have 
been  David's  headquarters  in  his  Philistine  war.  The  duel  with  Goliath 
(which  in  the  form  in  which  it  has  come  down  to  us  in  i  Sam.  is  legendary 
— the  earliest  account  is  2  Sam.  21  u)  is  located  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of 
Adullam — the  valley  of  Elah,  I  Sam.  17*.  Keilah  was  in  the  same  region. 

1  Our  text  puts  the  break  with  the  Philistines  after  the  capture  of  Jerusa- 
lem. But  it  is  incomprehensible  that  David  should  leave  his  fortress  at 
Jerusalem  to  go  down  to  Adullam.  The  account  of  the  capture  of  Jerusalem 
obviously  disturbs  the  connexion  of  the  passage  in  which  it  is  now  found. 
The  ralley  of  Rephaim  is  perhaps  named  from  the  gigantic  Philistines  (sons 
of  the  rapha)  who  were  overcome  there.  The  indication  of  2  Sam.  23 u, 
is  that  it  was  between  Adullam  and  Bethlehem,  and  nearer  the  former  place. 
The  current  identification  with  the  plain  that  stretches  southwestward  from 
Jerusalem  can  hardly  be  correct.  Oracles  from  sacred  trees  are  well  known 
in  other  religions.  The  rustling  of  the  sacred  oak  at  Dodona  was  regarded 
as  the  voice  of  Zeus;  Frazer,  The  Golden  Bough*,  III,  p.  346;  Evans. 
"Tree  and  Pillar  Cult,"  in  the  Journal  of  Hellenic  Studies,  XXI,  p.  106. 
Semitic  analogies  are  given  by  W.  R.  Smith,  Religion  of  the  Semites,  pp. 
126,  169,  178.  The  latter  author  finds  such  trees  in  Gen.  12  *,  Judg.  9",  cf. 
Deut.  iiw.  Egyptian  analogies  are  also  found,  Wiedemann,  Religion  of  tkt 
Ancient  Egyptians,  p.  155. 


OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

The  Philistine  campaign  or  campaigns  probably  opened  the 
king's  eyes  to  the  advantages  of  the  Canaanite  city  of  Jerusalem. 
The  settlement  at  this  location  must  have  been  one  of  the  earliest 
in  Southern  Palestine,  for  it  is  a  stronghold  by  nature.  Two 
rocky  ridges  with  a  shallow  valley  between  them  were  on  three 
sides  so  precipitous  that  they  scarcely  needed  the  art  of  man  to 
make  them  impregnable.  A  living  fountain  at  the  base  of  the 
eastern  ridge  fixed  the  location  of  the  first  houses.  As  time  went 
on  the  inhabitants  added  to  their  natural  fortifications  a  wall, 
which  the  Israelites  had  not  been  able  at  any  time  to  scale.  So 
great  was  the  confidence  of  the  people  in  the  place,  that  even 
against  David's  veterans  they  manned  the  wall  with  their  lame 
and  blind,  believing  these  to  be  sufficient  defenders.  Whether 
there  may  not  have  been  some  Israelites  settled  as  clients  in  the 
lower  town  before  the  time  of  David  is  a  question  easier  to  raise 
than  to  answer.  The  fact  that,  though  captured  by  Judah,  the 
city  was  always  counted  to  Benjamin  might  argue  for  the  affirma- 
tive.1 

The  over-confidence  of  the  garrison  was  its  ruin.  David's 
seasoned  soldiers  took  the  place  by  storm.  His  clemency  is  seen 
in  the  fact  that  Araunah,  a  Jebusite,  was  in  peaceable  possession 
of  his  landed  property  at  a  later  time.  Very  possibly  David  did 
not  at  once  take  up  his  residence  in  the  newly  conquered  city. 
It  would  be  of  use  to  him  as  a  frontier  fortress,  and  then  as  a 
basis  from  which  to  undertake  the  conquest  of  Benjamin,  while 
he  retained  his  residence  at  Hebron.1 

As  we  have  seen,  Ishbaal,  a  son  of  Saul,  had  been  proclaimed 
king  by  Abner,  his  cousin,  the  commander  of  Saul's  army.  Ab- 
ner  seems  to  have  been  a  man  of  energy  and  ability.  What  ar- 
rangement he  made  with  the  Philistines  we  do  not  know,  but 
some  shadow  of  power  must  have  been  left  to  Ishbaal,  even  over 
Benjamin.  To  avoid  the  humiliation  of  witnessing  Philistine  tax- 
gatherers  or  garrisons  in  his  court,  we  can  hardly  wonder  that 

1  The  name  Jebus  seems  to  be  an  erroneous  deduction  from  the  clan  name 
of  the  inhabitants — the  Jebusites.  The  name  Jerusalem  is  older  than  the  Is- 
raelite  invasion. 

1  The  literature  on  the  topography  and  history  of  Jerusalem  is  enormous. 
The  articles  in  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible  and  in  the  Encyclopaedia 
Biblita  may  be  consulted.  There  seems  to  be  substantial  unanimity  in  the 
vkw  that  the  original  city  of  the  Jebusites  and  of  David  was  on  the  eastern  ridge. 


DAVID  137 

Ishbaal1  preferred  to  fix  his  capital  across  the  Jordan,  where  a  loyal 
Israelite  population  was  still  found.  Of  course,  he  claimed  juris- 
diction over  all  that  had  belonged  to  his  father.  The  Hebrew 
writer  enumerates  Gilead,  Asher,  Jezreel,  Ephraim,  and  Ben- 
jamin as  making  up  his  kingdom.  It  is  difficult  to  suppose  that 
his  power  was  more  than  nominal  over  Asher  and  Jezreel. 

Whatever  piety  David  may  have  felt  toward  Saul,  he  had  no  scru- 
ples about  making  war  upon  his  successor.*  The  success  against  the 
Philistines  and  the  possession  of  Jerusalem  stimulated  his  ambi- 
tion to  unite  all  Israel  in  a  single  kingdom,  of  which  he  should 
be  the  head.  The  plan  was  statesmanlike,  even  if  moved  by  per- 
sonal ambition.  The  union  of  Israel  was  essential  if  the  people 
were  to  have  a  future,  and  true  union  could  come  only  in  a  mon- 
archy. Ishbaal  was  not  man  enough  either  to  unite  the  people  in 
loyalty  to  himself  or  to  throw  off  the  Philistine  yoke.  David 
was  in  the  full  consciousness  of  his  own  powers,  ambitious  to  ex- 
ercise those  powers  against  the  enemies  of  Yahweh.  The  first 
thing  was  to  consolidate  the  tribes.  Ishbaal  stood  in  the  way. 
Saul  had  been  respected  as  king  by  the  grace  of  God,  but  a  king 
by  the  grace  of  Abner  had  no  such  claims. 

The  offensive  was  taken  by  David,  as  we  may  judge  on  finding 
the  only  battle  recorded  for  us  taking  place  on  Benjamite  ground, 
near  Gibeon.  The  force  employed  on  David's  side  was  the  band 
of  seasoned  soldiers  which  had  accompanied  him  in  his  exile  and 
now  had  become  his  standing  army.  They  were  under  command 
of  Joab,  David's  nephew,  whose  courage  at  the  taking  of  Jerusa- 
lem had  given  him  promotion  to  the  generalship  of  the  army. 
We  must  judge  the  foray  into  Benjamin  like  an  Arab  Emir's 
raid  upon  his  neighbours — he  can  thereby  keep  his  troops  busy, 
secure  booty,  perhaps  harry  another  clan  into  asking  his  alliance. 
The  defence  in  this  case  was  in  the  hands  of  Abner,  who  is  rep- 
resented as  having  the  servants  of  Ishbaal  under  his  command. 
The  phrase  would  imply  enlisted  soldiers.  But  they  could  hardly 
have  been  the  veterans  of  Saul's  army,  for  these  had  perished 
with  their  master  at  Gilboa. 

1 1  assume  that  Ishbaal  was  the  original  form  of  the  name,  which  has  been 
corrupted  by  the  scribes  to  Ishbosheth  (Man  of  Shame).  Other  theories 
have  been  advanced,  but  seem  precarious. 

1 1t  is  perhaps  significant  that  in  speaking  of  the  death  of  Ishbaal,  David 
does  not  use  the  title  Anointed  of  Yahweh. 


138  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

As  the  account  has  come  down  to  us l  the  two  parties  are  seen 
at  the  great  reservoir  near  Gibeon.  As  they  face  each  other 
Abner  proposes  that  the  matter  be  settled  by  a  tournament  of  a 
few  picked  men — duels  before  the  main  engagement  are  not  un- 
common in  oriental  warfare,  as  we  have  already  noted.  Joab 
consents,  twelve  men  are  chosen  on  each  side,  and  the  two  com- 
panies meet  in  sight  of  the  armies.  The  result  is  indecisive — the 
champions  fall  dead  together,  with  no  survivor  to  claim  the 
victory  on  either  side.1  A  general  engagement  follows,  in  which 
Abner  and  his  men  are  put  to  flight.  The  only  incident  which 
is  preserved  to  us  is  the  death  of  Asahel  at  the  hand  of  Abner. 
Though  done  in  self-defence  and  in  open  battle,  this  becomes  a 
reason  for  blood -revenge  on  the  part  of  Joab,  Asahel's  brother. 
How  the  revenge  is  taken  we  learn  later.  For  the  present  we  are 
allowed  to  infer  that  Abner  and  his  party  would  have  been  com- 
pletely exterminated  had  not  the  leader  called  for  quarter.  His 
plea  is  based  on  the  unity  of  blood  in  Israel  and  Judah.  The 
appeal  is  heeded  by  Joab,  who  calls  off  his  men  and  returns  to 
Hebron. 

We  must  suppose  that  the  battle  is  only  one  out  of  a  number 
that  were  fought  before  the  final  surrender  of  Israel  to  David. 
That  the  process  extended  over  a  considerable  time,  is  directly 
stated  by  the  historian,  who  adds  that  the  house  of  Saul  grew 
weaker  and  weaker,  while  David  was  growing  stronger  and 
stronger.  Nothing  succeeds  like  success,  and  we  cannot  wonder 
that  the  conviction  made  its  way  in  Israel  that  David  was  the  man 
for  the  hour.  The  course  of  events  was  hastened  by  a  quarrel  be- 
tween Ishbaal  and  his  supporter.  The  woman  in  the  case  was  a 
concubine  of  Saul,  named  Rizpah.  According  to  ancient  Semit- 
ic custom,  a  man's  wives  are  a  part  of  his  estate,  and  go  to  his 
heirs  on  his  death.*  Abner  took  possession  of  Rizpah  in  defiance 
of  the  right  of  Ishbaal.  The  act  could  be  interpreted  only  as  a 
trespass;  it  was  therefore  an  open  declaration  that  the  Major 
Domo  knew  himself  to  be  strong  enough  to  disregard  common 

1  It  is  possible  that  two  events  have  become  confused  by  the  tradition,  for 
the  narrative  as  it  stands  does  not  read  smoothly. 

1  The  Roman  legend  of  the  Horatii  and  Curiatii  is  compared  with  this  by 
Winckler,  Gesch.  Israels,  II,  p.  I94f. 

•The  evidence  is  given  by  W.  R.  Smith,  Kinship  and  Marriage,  pp. 
66-91. 


DAVID  139 

opinion  and  the  claim  of  his  master.  Weak  men  are  proverbi- 
ally jealous  of  prerogative,  and  least  willing  to  recognise  the  fact 
of  their  own  weakness.  Ishbaal  called  Abner  to  account,  but 
the  only  reply  he  got  was  a  taunt,  and  a  declaration  of  re- 
volt. To  this  he  had  nothing  to  reply.  The  fact  seems  to  be 
that  Abner  was  getting  tired  of  a  losing  struggle.  He  was  seek- 
ing a  pretext  to  go  over  to  David.  His  influence  in  Benjamin 
was  considerable — perhaps  it  was  worth  something  with  the 
Sheikhs  of  the  other  tribes.  He  could  at  least  negotiate  with 
David  and  secure  his  own  future. 

Hence  his  message  to  David,  which  contained  a  round  promise 
to  bring  all  Israel  over  to  him  in  case  terms  could  be  agreed 
upon.  David  insisted,  as  a  preliminary,  that  Saul's  daughter 
Michal,  the  wife  of  his  youth,  should  be  returned  to  him — she 
had  been  married  to  another  soon  after  David's  flight  from 
Gibeah.  Was  David  moved  by  sentiment  ?  Had  he  cherished 
the  memory  of  her  affection  through  all  these  years?  Or,  was  he 
simply  anxious  to  wipe  out  the  disgrace  that  attached  to  him  in 
another  man's  possessing  what  he  had  a  claim  to?  Or,  was  he 
only  politic— did  he  think  his  possession  of  Saul's  daughter 
would  strengthen  his  position  as  Saul's  successor?  We  are  en- 
tirely in  the  dark  in  the  endeavour  to  answer  these  questions. 
The  demand  was  made,  and  Abner  hastened  to  accede  to  it. 
Formally  it  was  made  to  Ishbaal,  the  execution  was  intrusted  to 
Abner.  Possibly  the  affair  was  purposely  planned  in  such  a 
way  as  to  give  Abner  a  good  pretext  for  visiting  David.  The 
distress  of  the  woman's  husband  is  vividly  set  before  us.  What 
her  own  feelings  were,  we  are  not  told  ;  but  we  can  readily  see 
that  her  introduction  to  the  court  of  Hebron  could  not  have 
been  very  happy.  Her  harsh  words  to  David  at  the  time  of  the 
bringing  up  of  the  Ark,  were  probably  the  breaking  out  of  long 
pent-up  feelings.1 

The  airangement  between  David  and  Abner  was  easily  made. 
The  king  knew  the  value  of  the  man  with  whom  he  was  dealing. 
A  feast  was  held  to  ratify  the  compact  between  them.1  Abner 

1  2  Sam.  3  •-*•  contains  the  account  of  Abner's  trespass,  his  treason,  and 
his  death.  The  narrative  is  not  free  from  difficulties,  but  there  seems  no 
reason  to  question  its  main  statements. 

•A  sacrificial  feast  is  what  we  expect  on  such  an  occasion,  but  probably  all 
feasts  were  sacrificial  io  this  period. 


140  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

agreed  to  use  his  influence  with  the  Sheikhs  in  favour  of  David. 
The  king,  on  his  part,  must  have  agreed  to  reward  Abner  with  a 
high  place  at  court.  Perhaps  he  already  felt  the  inconvenience 
of  having  too  powerful  a  servant,  such  as  we  know  Joab  to  have 
been ;  in  which  case  he  was  hoping  to  use  Abner  as  a  counter- 
poise. One  thing,  however,  must  have  been  discussed.  Abner 
was  in  blood-feud  with  Joab  on  account  of  the  death  of  Asahel. 
There  must  have  been  some  pledge  of  security  on  the  part  of 
the  king,  an  assurance  that  the  king's  peace  was  stronger  than 
tribal  claims,  and  that  the  king's  peace  would  be  made  effective  in 
his  favour.  It  would  imply  gross  carelessness  to  leave  this 
point  untouched  in  the  negotiations. 

Whatever  assurances  passed  between  the  parties  on  this  point, 
they  reckoned  without  their  host.  Joab  had  been  sent  with  his 
troops  on  an  expedition,  so  that  Abner's  visit  might  be  made 
without  disturbance.  Returning  soon  after  Abner  had  taken  his 
departure,  he  learned  what  had  occurred.  It  could  not  be  pleas- 
ing to  him  to  have  at  court  a  possible  rival  and  a  certain  enemy. 
Whether  he  fathomed  David's  inner  purpose  or  not,  he  needed 
no  concurrent  motive  to  seek  Abner's  blood — the  most  sacred 
duty  of  a  clansman  rested  upon  him  ;  for  blood-revenge  makes 
its  demand  most  stringently  on  the  nearest  kin,  and  one's  own 
brother  is  nearest  of  all.  The  severest  regulations  of  Moham- 
med, enforced  by  the  sanctions  of  religion,  failed  in  some  in- 
stances to  control  his  followers  in  this  matter,  and  we  cannot 
wonder  that  David,  a  recently  elected  monarch,  should  fail  to 
make  the  king's  peace  binding  in  the  face  of  natural  impulse 
reinforced  by  tribal  morality.  Joab  was  impetuous  and  unscru- 
pulous. His  expostulation  with  David  showed  the  freedom 
which  he  enjoyed  at  court.  He  doubtless  felt  that  David,  him- 
self a  kinsman,  was  unfaithful  to  his  blood  in  giving  Abner  a 
safe-conduct.  The  safe-conduct  did  not  avail  with  him.  Send- 
ing for  Abner  on  the  pretext  that  some  matters  of  detail  were  yet 
to  be  arranged,  he  took  him  aside  in  the  city  gate.  His  brother 
Abishai  kept  off  any  meddlers,  and  Joab  took  his  revenge  by 
stabbing  Abner  to  the  heart.  The  only  thing  strange  in  the 
matter  is  the  security  which  Abner  seems  to  have  felt.  Perhaps 
he  was  intoxicated  with  the  prospect  of  the  new  honours  he  was 
about  to  receive  at  the  hand  of  David. 

David  was  innocent  in  the  matter,  and  his  indignation  at  the 


DAVID  141 

violation  of  the  king's  peace  showed  itself  in  the  violence  of 
his  language.  In  strong  objurgation  he  wished  upon  Joab's  de- 
scendants filthy  diseases,  physical  weakness,  effeminacy,  and 
poverty.  But  he  did  not  venture  to  punish  the  offender.  He 
could  not  get  along  without  Joab.  Doubtless  his  conscience  was 
somewhat  divided  against  itself.  Tribal  morality  was  still  strong, 
and  the  common  sense  of  the  people  would  uphold  Joab.  To  set 
up  a  new  code  might  even  endanger  the  throne.  To  purge  him- 
self from  the  suspicion  of  having  been  an  accomplice,  however, 
the  king  himself  followed  the  bier  of  the  slain  man  and  composed 
a  dirge  for  the  occasion : l 

"  Should  Abner  die  as  dies  the  fool  ? 
Thy  hands  were  not  bound, 
Thy  feet  not  brought  into  fetters  ! 
As  one  falls  before  ruthless  men  thou  didst  fall. " 

The  death  of  Abner  threw  the  kingdom  of  Ishbaal  into  confu- 
sion, for  the  incompetency  of  the  king  became  manifest.  Two 
soldiers  of  fortune,  enlisted  in  his  service,  thought  to  make  their 
personal  profit  out  of  the  situation  by  the  assassination  of  the 
unfortunate  monarch.  It  is  possible  that  they  had  other  reasons 
for  the  deed.*  Their  reception  by  David  when  they  appeared  at 
Hebron  was  different  from  their  anticipation.  The  king's  sense 
of  justice  conspired  with  his  interest  to  discourage  assassination, 
and  the  self-confessed  criminals  were  executed  on  the  spot.* 
Their  hands  and  feet,  as  the  guilty  instruments  of  the  crime  and 

1  The  reader  will  notice  the  closeness  with  which  this  account  has  followed 
the  Biblical  text.  The  greater  part  of  2  Sam.  comes  from  an  old  and  well- 
informed  source,  which,  however,  is  not  as  homogeneous  as  has  sometimes 
been  assumed.  In  the  section  just  reproduced  (2  '-3  w)  there  are  some  un- 
evennesses  due  to  interpolation.  The  most  disturbing  is  3  "•",  which  repre- 
sents Abner  as  having  made  considerable  effort  to  promote  David's  cause 
before  he  went  to  Hebron.  This  seems  improbable,  and,  besides,  the  para- 
graph interrupts  the  thread  of  the  story. 

1  The  obscure  notice  2  Sam.  4 lf  seems  designed  to  explain  that  the  assas- 
sins were  not  full-blooded  Benjamites,  but  clients.  It  has  been  conjectured 
that  the  Beerothites  were  among  the  Gibeonites  attacked  by  Saul,  in  which 
case  these  men  had  revenge  to  take. 

•  Winckler  supposes  the  statement  legendary,  influenced  by  the  story  of  the 
Amalekite  in  2  Sam.  I.  I  should  prefer  to  consider  this  the  original.  An 
exact  historical  parallel  from  the  life  of  Ahmed  Ibn  Tulun  is  given  by 
Stihelin,  Leben  Davids  (1866),  p.  28. 


142  OLD  TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

the  escape,  were  exposed  to  view  in  a  public  place.  The  head 
of  Ishbaal,  on  the  other  hand,  was  carefully  buried  in  the  grave 
of  Abner,  his  kinsman.  The  conduct  of  David  toward  the  house 
of  Saul  gives  no  occasion  for  adverse  criticism. 

At  the  same  time,  the  new  kingdom  could  not  fail  to  benefit 
by  the  death  of  Ishbaal.  The  party  of  Saul  was  left  without  a 
competent  head.  Jonathan's  only  son  was  a  cripple.  The  sons 
of  Rizpah,  of  whom  we  hear  later,  were  of  inferior  blood  on  the 
mother's  side.  The  sons  of  Merab  were  reckoned  to  their  fath- 
er's tribe.  No  doubt  the  temper  of  Benjamin  was  such  that  any 
near  relative  of  Saul  who  had  the  qualities  of  leadership  could 
have  rallied  the  tribe  to  his  support.  But  such  a  man  did  not 
appear.  If  Israel  were  to  be  united — and  the  course  of  events 
made  this  increasingly  necessary — David  was  the  only  possibility. 
Hence  the  Sheikhs,  no  doubt  after  long  debate  among  themselves, 
came  to  him  and  recognised  him  as  king.  The  process  probably 
went  on  gradually  for  a  number  of  years.  The  step  was  often 
taken  reluctantly,  sometimes  under  compulsion,  sometimes  has- 
tened by  concessions  on  David's  part.  It  is  a  loss  to  history  that 
we  have  not  the  details,  and  also  that  there  has  come  down  to  us 
no  copy  of  the  "  covenant"  which  was  entered  into.1  The  ex- 
istence of  such  an  agreement  (whether  oral  or  written  makes  no 
special  difference)  shows  that  the  king  was  not  regarded  as  an 
absolute  monarch.  The  Sheikhs  made  some  effort  to  protect 
the  liberties  of  the  tribes.  Moreover,  they  did  not  regard  the 
recognition  of  the  monarch  as  a  pledge  to  continue  his  dynasty 
on  the  throne.  The  renewal  of  the  constitution  (if  this  be  not 
too  large  a  word)  was  expected  at  each  new  coronation.  The 
parallel  in  the  early  Caliphate,  where  the  monarch  was  elected  by 
the  suffrages  of  the  Moslems,  will  occur  to  everyone. 

The  Hebrew  historian's  lack  of  interest  in  what  we  should  call 
political  or  constitutional  history,  leaves  us  in  the  dark  concern- 
ing the  measures  that  David  took  to  unify  his  kingdom.  Some 
such  measures  he  must  have  taken.  Israel  was  a  congeries  of 
clans,  only  feebly  conscious  of  their  common  blood.  Some  of 
them  were  largely  made  up  of  Canaanite  elements.  Their  jeal- 

1  The  compact  was  made  in  Hebron  "  before  Yahweh  "  (2  Sam.  5  *),  and 
had  been  preceded  by  a  covenant  with  Abner,  perhaps  as  representative  of 
the  tribes,  3  '*•  "• "  ;  though  we  must  not  lose  sight  of  the  possibility  that 
the  passages  belong  to  different  documents. 


DAVID  143 

ousies  of  each  other  were  notorious.  Ephraim  had  never  taken 
kindly  to  the  leadership  of  any  other  tribe;  Benjamin  was  only 
half  won  over  to  the  new  king;  the  wars  between  David  and 
Ishbaal  must  have  left  many  a  feud  unsettled.  It  was  probably 
in  view  of  the  unsettled  state  of  affairs  that  David  removed  his 
capital  to  Jerusalem.  The  location  was  excellent — a  fortress  that 
could  easily  be  made  impregnable,  midway  between  Hebron,  the 
capital  of  the  south,  and  Shechem,  the  capital  of  Ephraim,  with- 
out historic  associations  that  could  arouse  the  jealousy  of  any 
tribe,  on  the  border  of  Benjamin,  where  he  could  keep  an  eye 
on  that  unruly  tribe.  The  command  of  the  highway  from  north 
to  south  was  also  important ;  less  so  the  command  of  the  road 
from  Joppa  to  Jericho.  It  was  a  stroke  of  genius  when  David 
strengthened  the  citadel  and  removed  his  residence  thither.  The 
history  of  the  city  since  his  time  has  justified  his  choice.  Even 
after  the  northern  tribes  had  revolted  from  the  house  of  David, 
no  king  ever  thought  of  returning  to  Hebron. 

The  choice  of  Jerusalem,  then,  is  one  of  the  steps  taken  to  con- 
solidate the  kingdom.  We  are  tempted  to  put  alongside  of  it 
the  removal  of  the  Ark  to  the  new  capital.1  But  in  doing  this  we 
should  be  importing  into  the  transaction  the  ideas  of  a  later  time. 
It  must  be  remembered  that  David  had  no  idea  of  making  a 
single  central  sanctuary  for  the  whole  country.  In  his  time  the 
land  was  full  of  sanctuaries.  They  were  on  every  high  hill  and 
under  every  green  tree,  as  a  later  prophet  informs  us,  and  up  to 
this  time  no  one  had  any  idea  that  they  were  not  all  legitimate 
places  of  worship  for  all  Israel.  What  David  had  in  mind  was 
to  secure  for  his  own  residence — in  fact  for  his  own  chapel — the 
ancient  palladium  of  Israel.  It  was  probably  not  the  only  sacred 
object  that  would  grace  the  new  place  of  worship.  Abiathar, 
who  had  carried  the  ephod  in  the  wilderness  campaigns,  was 
priest  of  the  royal  house,  and  naturally  we  suppose  that  he 
brought  his  ephod  with  him.  But  the  Ark  had  been  connected 
with  the  worship  of  Ephraim  and  Benjamin.  Though  it  had 
remained  in  comparative  obscurity  since  the  time  when  the  Phil- 
istines had  returned  it  to  its  own  territory,  it  was  still  venerable 
from  its  antiquity,  and  might  be  made  to  contribute  to  the  rec- 
onciliation of  the  northern  tribes.  Doubtless,  also,  David  was 
moved  by  a  desire  to  have  in  his  citadel  such  a  pledge  of  the 
'a Sam.  6»-». 


144  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

presence  of  Yahweh.  Its  ancient  reputation  as  a  leader  in  battle 
was  known  to  him,  and  we  find  him  sending  it  on  some  of  his 
campaigns  later.  Piety  and  worldly  interest  seem  to  have  com- 
bined to  recommend  the  removal. 

David  and  his  men  therefore  went  to  Baal  Judah  to  bring  up 
the  Ark.  The  two  sons  of  its  guardian  accompanied  it,  and, 
after  the  manner  of  the  Philistines,  it  was  carried  on  a  cart  which 
had  never  been  profaned  by  any  other  work.1  David  and  a  select 
choir  of  musicians  joined  in  songs  of  religious  exaltation  before  it. 
But  the  joy  was  marred  by  an  untoward  accident.  The  procession 
had  already  reached  Jerusalem,  and  was  climbing  up  the  ascent  to 
the  citadel,  when  the  oxen  slipped  in  the  miry  street.  The  cart 
shook  and  the  Ark  seemed  about  to  fall,  when  Uzzah,  who  was 
walking  by  its  side,  put  out  his  hand  to  steady  it.  By  what  the 
spectators  interpreted  as  an  act  of  God,  the  rash  man  fell  dead 
on  the  spot.  We  can  hardly  wonder  that  David  was  angry  when 
he  saw  his  care  repaid  by  such  an  outbreak,  or  that  he  feared  to 
have  so  incomprehensible  a  God  near  him.  The  nearest  house  at 
the  time  of  the  accident  belonged  to  Obed-edom,  one  of  David's 
Philistine  mercenaries.  Hither  the  sacred  and  dangerous  object 
was  brought,  and  here  it  was  left,  the  aim  of  the  day's  work  being 
unattained. 

Such  is  the  story  we  find  in  our  record,  and,  in  spite  of  some 
difficulties,*  there  seems  to  be  no  reason  why  we  should  not  ac- 
cept it  as  substantially  correct.  The  anger  of  Yahweh  was  in- 
deed unaccountable,  for  there  is  no  evidence  that  Uzzah  violated 
any  regulation  or  tradition  then  in  existence.  But  unaccounta- 

1  Stahelin,  Leben  Davids,  p.  39  speaks  of  sacred  wagons  among  the 
Phoenicians  (Carthaginians),  but  I  am  not  able  to  verify  the  reference  or 
to  confirm  the  statement  from  other  sources. 

*  The  opening  statement  (2  Sam.  6 1),  seems  to  be  part  of  another  narra- 
tive; it  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  Kirjath-jearim,  at  which  we  left  the  Ark 
in  the  time  of  Samuel,  is  the  same  as  Baal  Judah,  which  seems  to  be  the 
place  where  David  finds  it.  For  these  reasons,  and  others,  Cheyne  (article 
"Ark"  in  the  Enc.  Bib.)  thinks  it  more  probable  that  David  captured  the 
Ark  from  the  Philistines,  bringing  it  from  the  house  of  Obed-edom  in  Gath. 
But  it  seems  to  me  impossible  to  suppose  that  a  Hebrew  author  of  a  later 
time  would  have  enrolled  Obed-edom,  a  Gittite,  among  David's  men,  and 
made  him  reside  in  Jerusalem,  unless  he  were  compelled  by  the  facts  so  to  do. 
The  death  of  Uzzah  is  indeed  mysterious,  but  not  entirely  inexplicable.  In 
The  views  then  held  of  the  sacredness  of  the  Ark,  the  man's  own  terror  at  his 
rash  act  it  enough  to  account  for  the  stroke  that  came  upon  him. 


DAVID  I4S 

bility  was  then  attributed  to  the  God  of  Israel.  What  He  did 
here  was  only  in  line  with  what  the  people  had  observed  else- 
where. The  prophets  had  not  yet  arisen  to  teach  that  the  divine 
acts  were  not  arbitrary  but  were  motived  by  righteousness. 

After  three  months'  experiment,  it  became  evident  that  Yahweh's 
anger  was  to  have  no  further  ill-effects.  The  prosperity  of  Obed- 
edom  and  his  household  became  the  subject  of  common  remark. 
David  was  not  minded  to  lose  such  advantages,  and  he  resolved 
to  bring  the  giver  home  to  himself.  This  time,  to  avoid  further 
accident,  the  Ark  was  carried  up  the  hill  on  men's  shoulders. 
The  solemn  procession  was  again  formed,  with  the  king  at  its 
head.  As  soon  as  it  became  evident  that  Yahweh  was  disposed 
to  go,  a  sacrifice  was  offered.1  With  shoutings  and  trumpetings 
the  train  entered  the  fortress,  the  king  in  advance  whirling  and 
leaping  in  the  sacred  dance,  clothed  in  the  primitive  garment 
usually  worn  by  the  ministers  of  the  sanctuary.  Yahweh  was  in- 
troduced into  the  tent  prepared  for  Him,  lavish  sacrifices  were 
offered,  and  provisions  for  a  feast  were  distributed  to  the  people. 

Thus  was  consecrated  a  spot  destined  to  become  famous  in  the 
world's  history.  The  Ark  was  connected  by  tradition  with  Israel's 
past ;  it  now  became  the  central  object  of  the  royal  sanctuary. 
That  sanctuary  became  the  site  of  Solomon's  Temple,  and  the 
Ark  continued  its  chief  and  central  sacrum.  To  a  later  time  it 
continued  to  be  the  unique  symbol  of  the  divine  presence,  and  the 
pledge  of  the  covenant  between  Yahweh  and  His  people.  Little 
of  this  was  in  David's  thought ;  he  builded  wiser  than  he  knew.* 

The  author  of  our  account  gives  us  a  glimpse  into  the  harem 
as  a  supplement  to  his  story.1  Michal,  Saul's  daughter,  had  no 
understanding  of  her  husband's  religious  fervour,  though  it  was 
not  unlike  what  she  must  have  witnessed  in  her  own  father. 
Watching  the  procession  from  her  lattice,  she  marked  only  the 

1  Doubtless  by  the  king's  own  hand.  We  know  that  Saul  offered  sacrifice, 
and  in  the  sacred  character  conferred  by  anointing,  the  king  would  find  his 
right  to  act  as  priest.  Later  times  drew  the  line  more  strictly.  Assyrian 
parallels  are  given  by  McCurdy,  History,  Prophecy,  and  the  Monuments,  I, 
p.  64.  The  story  of  Melchizedek  shows  how  easily  even  a  late  writer  joins 
the  offices  of  priest  and  king. 

1  To  the  account  we  have  been  considering  a  late  writer  has  appended  a 
Messianic  promise,  introduced  by  a  statement  of  David's  desire  to  build  a 
permanent  temple,  2  Sam.  7. 

»2  Sam.  6"-*. 


146  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

violation  of  conventional  decency  as  the  king,  lightly  clothed, 
leaped  and  whirled  before  the  Ark.  Her  sarcastic  greeting  as 
he  came  into  the  house  was  perhaps  the  expression  of  something 
more  than  momentary  feeling.  The  king's  reply,  with  its  re- 
minder of  her  father's  dynasty  and  its  fall,  was  not  calculated  to 
restore  good  feeling.  The  permanent  estrangement  that  resulted 
was  only  too  natural. 

As  has  already  been  intimated,  we  would  readily  spare  some  of 
the  family  history  in  which  our  authors  are  interested,  if  only  we 
could  have  a  clearer  view  of  political  events.  All  that  we  learn 
about  David's  foreign  policy  is,  that  after  his  defeat  of  the  Phil- 
istines he  turned  his  arms  against  the  people  beyond  the  Jordan. 
First  attacking  Moab  he  treated  them  with  great  severity.  Two- 
thirds  of  the  males  are  said  to  have  been  put  to  the  sword.  For 
this  cruelty  some  special  provocation  has  been  looked  for — 
treachery  against  David's  family  has  been  suggested  for  one 
thing.1  But  it  is  doubtful  whether  any  hypothesis  of  the  kind  is 
necessary.  The  Old  Testament  gives  evidence  enough  of  the 
bloody  character  of  the  wars  carried  on  in  those  days.  If  we 
may  trust  a  later  writer,*  Edom  was  even  more  severely  treated. 
What  was  left  of  these  tribes  was  made  tributary,  and  there 
seems  to  have  been  no  attempt  to  embody  them  in  the  kingdom 
in  the  sense  in  which  the  tribes  of  Israel  were  embodied  in  it. 
The  case  of  the  Ammonites  was  different.  They  gave  special 
provocation,  and  those  of  them  who  survived  the  war  were  put 
at  hard  labour.  Their  allies  in  the  region  of  Lebanon  were  com- 
pelled to  pay  tribute.8  Thus  David  became  king  over  a  respecta- 
ble territory,  but  one  in  which  the  heterogeneous  elements  were 
likely  to  fall  apart  when  the  controlling  hand  of  the  monarch 
loosened  its  grasp.  The  greetings  of  Toi,  king  of  Hamath,  and 

1  The  enigmatical  insertion  in  I  Sam.  22,  to  the  effect  that  David  intrusted 
his  father  and  mother  to  the  care  of  the  King  of  Moab  gives  no  basis  for  the 
suggestion. 

1  I  Kings,  1 1  ",  where  we  are  told  that  Joab  slew  all  the  males.  Winckler 
supposes  with  some  probability  that  in  the  first  campaign  Israel  had  been 
defeated,  and  that  the  severity  of  Joab  was  exercised  in  revenge,  Alttest.  [/*• 
tersuchungtn,  p.  4. 

§2  Sam.  IQ'-II  ',  121*-*1.  From  a  later  passage  we  learn  that  Shobi  ben 
Nahash  gave  David  substantial  aid  and  comfort  during  the  revolt  of  Absalom 
(ibid.,  i7tT-w).  It  does  not  seem  presumptuous  to  suppose  that  David  had 
made  him  governor  of  Ammon  after  the  defeat  and  execution  of  his  brother 
Hanun. 


DAVID  147 

perhaps  of  the  king  of  Tyro  welcomed  him  into  the  circle  of 
monarchs.  According  to  the  Hebrew  writer,  Toi  sent  him  pres- 
ents, and  the  king  of  Tyre  offered  him  artificers,  Phoenicia  be- 
ing far  in  advance  of  Israel  in  the  mechanic  arts. 

The  court  was  organised  on  a  more  extensive  scale  than  in  the 
kingdom  of  Saul.  David  himself  was,  of  course,  the  chief  jus- 
tice, and  was  accessible  to  all  his  people.  The  case  of  the  wise 
woman  of  Tekoah  is  enough  to  show  this,  and  Absalom's  insinua- 
tion of  lack  of  due  attention  on  the  king's  part  to  cases  of  wrong 
must  be  taken  as  the  demagogue's  perversion  of  the  truth  in  his 
own  interest.  We  hear  now,  for  the  first  time,  of  an  officer  whose 
business  it  was  to  keep  track  of  public  affairs — a  monitor  for  the 
king.  Perhaps  the  Wezir  of  the  Caliphate  would  fairly  represent 
him.  Two  chief  military  officers  are  named — Joab  over  the  army, 
and  Benaiah  over  the  Cherethites  and  Pelethites.  We  can  un- 
derstand this  only  by  assuming  that  Joab  was  the  commander-in- 
chief,  who  led  the  whole  effective  force  of  the  nation  when  it 
was  called  out,  while  Benaiah  was  the  second  in  command.  The 
Cherethites  and  Pelethites  were  the  body-guard,  a  band  of  mer- 
cenaries recruited,  as  the  name  indicates,  among  foreigners, 
chiefly  Philistines.  The  nucleus  of  the  force  was  David's  band 
of  followers  in  the  wilderness.  A  picked  force  of  thirty  men 
was  distinguished  by  a  separate  organisation  under  their  own 
commander.  We  hear  also  of  a  scribe,  apparently  the  king's 
private  secretary,  and  two  priests  are  now  counted  among  the 
court  officers.  One  of  these  was  Abiathar,  the  survivor  of  Saul's 
massacre  at  Nob,  who  had  carried  the  ephod  during  the  wilder- 
ness sojourn.  The  other,  Zadok,  was  promoted  for  reasons 
unknown  to  us.  The  royal  chapel  seems  to  have  had  other  func- 
tionaries, among  whom  David's  sons  were  enrolled.  Now,  for 
the  first  time,  we  hear  of  an  overseer  of  the  forced  labour,  show- 
ing the  way  in  which  the  king  construed  his  prerogative.  There 
was  also  a  council  whose  members  were  called  Friends  of  the 
King.  They  were  entertained  regularly  at  the  royal  table.1 

As  we  should  expect  in  an  oriental  monarch,  when  David's 
power  and  wealth  increased,  he  increased  also  his  harem.1  In 

1  The  list  of  officers  given  in  2  Sam.  ao  *-*  and  less  fully  in  8  "-"  may 
readily  be  supplemented  from  other  parts  of  the  narrative. 

1  Mohammad  again  furnishes  a  parallel,  both  in  the  increase  of  his  estab- 
lishment and  in  the  sudden  passion  which  seized  him  for  his  neighbour's  wife. 


148  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

comparison  with  Solomon  his  establishment  was  modest  enough. 
Six  wives  are  known  to  us  by  name  before  the  removal  to  Jerusa- 
lem, not  including  Michal.  At  Jerusalem  he  added  considerably 
to  the  number.  It  is  not  improbable  that  he  entered  into  alliance 
with  neighbouring  monarchs  by  marriage,  but  our  sources  record 
only  one  instance — Absalom's  mother  was  a  princess  of  Geshur 
— probably  a  Philistine  district.1  Rabbinical  ingenuity  counts 
eighteen  wives  and  concubines  in  David's  establishment,  but  the 
ten  concubines  left  by  David  when  he  fled  from  Absalom  can 
hardly  have  been  so  large  a  proportion  of  the  whole  number — 
more  than  one-half. 

The  story  of  David's  adultery  is  so  familiar,  that  the  historian 
may  excuse  himself  from  repeating  it.2  In  its  present  form,  the 
account  has  been  worked  over  by  a  comparatively  late  hand,  but 
there  seems  to  be  no  reason  to  doubt  the  accuracy  of  its  main 
features — the  adultery,  the  attempt  at  concealment,  the  murder 
of  Uriah.  Similar  incidents  are  common  enough  in  the  lives  of 
absolute  monarchs.  The  peculiarity  of  this  one  is  the  fidelity 
with  which  the  moral  sense  of  the  community  asserted  itself  in 
the  rebuke  by  the  prophet. 

Next  to  sensual  indulgence,  parental  fondness  for  sons  has  been 
the  temptation  of  oriental  rulers.  In  this,  also,  David  was  the 
child  of  his  own  times,  and  of  his  own  people.  His  sons  grew 
up  without  the  wholesome  restraints  which  are  needed  in  a  court, 
though  so  difficult  there  to  impose.  The  eldest  gave  way  to  his 
mad  passion  for  his  half-sister  Tamar.  Her  brother  Absalom 
avenged  the  outrage  by  killing  the  perpetrator.  His  banishment 
from  the  court  was  ended  at  the  intercession  of  Joab,  but  his  high 
temper  is  seen  in  his  treatment  of  his  benefactor.  Not  willing 
to  wait  for  the  throne  until  his  father  should  be  taken  away  in 
the  course  of  nature,  he  stirred  up  the  disaffection  which  he  saw 
smouldering  in  Judah.  The  demagogic  arts  with  which  he  se- 
duced the  people  from  their  allegiance  are  vividly  described.* 
No  doubt  there  was  wide-spread  disaffection.  Judah  was  angry 

1  The  Aramaic  Geshur  was  too  remote  for  David's  alliance  in  his  early 
career.  It  should  be  noted  that  one  author  makes  David  the  possessor  of 
Saul's  harem,  2  Sam.  12*. 

"2  Sam.  nl-i2w. 

"2  Sam.  IS1"*.  Absalom's  personal  charm  is  evident.  The  statement 
about  his  hair  is  possibly  intended  to  tell  us  that  he  was  also  a  religious 
devotee — in  which  character  he  would  add  to  his  influence  over  men. 


DAVID  149 

because  the  capital  had  been  taken  away  from  Hebron.  Benja- 
min had  little  reason  to  love  its  conqueror.  In  the  other  tribes 
the  new  order  of  things  could  not  fail  to  make  some  enemies. 
The  temper  of  a  considerable  part  of  the  people  is  indicated  in 
oriental  fashion  by  the  conduct  of  Shimei.1 

The  extent  of  the  disaffection  was  known  to  David,  for  he  left 
his  capital  and  retreated  to  Mahanaim,  the  stronghold  of  ancient 
Israelite  loyalty.  With  him  there  went  only  his  mercenaries, 
now  apparently  two  companies — veteran  Cherethites  and  Peleth- 
ites,  and  anew  band  under  Ittai  the  Gittite.  Outside  the  king's 
own  household  none  of  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  showed 
their  loyalty  by  offering  to  fight  for  him.  In  fact,  the  whole 
country  was  aflame.  Shimei  would  not  have  dared  to  show  his 
hatred  had  he  not  been  sure  that  Benjamin  at  least  was  of  his 
way  of  thinking.  The  rebellion  of  the  Bichrites  under  Sheba, 
their  Sheikh,  was  only  a  part  of  the  general  revolt.*  When  it 
became  clear  that  Absalom  was  no  improvement  over  David,  the 
people  gradually  took  sides.  In  the  final  battle  David's  forces 
included  a  considerable  body  of  militia.  But  even  here  it  is  plain 
that  his  mercenaries  turned  the  scale.  The  reduction  of  Abel  in 
the  extreme  north  of  the  country  (near  Dan)  was  the  last  act  of 
an  extended  drama.  The  fierce  quarrel  which  took  place  when 
David  returned  to  his  capital  gives  a  vivid  picture  of  the  feeling 
between  Israel  and  Judah,  and  we  cannot  say  that  David  was  free 
from  bias  in  the  way  he  treated  it. 

It  is  hopeless  to  attempt  restoration  of  the  chronological  order 
so  plainly  violated  by  our  narratives.  The  two  great  calamities 
of  David's  reign  are  recounted  for  us  in  an  appendix  to  the  main 
history,  and  we  must  be  content  to  take  them  in  the  same  order. 
They  are  too  characteristic  of  the  times  to  be  passed  over.  The 
first  of  these  was  one  of  the  famines  of  which  we  hear  in  Pales- 
tine from  the  earliest  times.  When  the  visitation  came,  David 
inquired  of  the  oracle  for  the  cause  of  Yahweh's  wrath,  and  re- 
ceived the  reply  that  blood  rested  on  the  house  of  Saul  for  his 
slaughter  of  the  Gibeonites.  The  Gibeonites,  as  we  have  already 

1 2  Sam.  16  *-If.  The  abject  submission  of  the  rebel  at  David's  return 
(I91*  *)  deprives  him  of  the  little  sympathy  we  might  give  him  as  a  kinsman 
of  Saul. 

1  Our  sources  present  the  revolt  of  Sheba  as  a  sort  of  postlude  to  Absalom's 
usurpation.  But  it  would  have  been  madness  to  revolt  after  the  suppression 
of  Absalom. 


ISO  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

seen,  were  Canaanites  who  had  entered  into  alliance  with  Israel. 
Such  alliances  were  the  rule  rather  than  the  exception  in  the  time 
preceding  the  monarchy.  Saul,  within  whose  territory  the  Gibe- 
onites  were  located,  was  moved  by  the  same  sort  of  zeal  for  a 
purely  Israelite  nationality  which  later  found  such  extreme  ex- 
pression in  the  book  of  Deuteronomy.  He  was  minded,  there- 
fore, to  disregard  the  solemn  sanctions  by  which  Israel  was 
bound,  and  took  steps  to  exterminate  the  Canaanitish  section  of 
the  people.  This  was  the  more  indefensible  in  that  the  people 
of  Gibeon  had  Yahweh  as  their  Baal. 

The  interpretation  put  upon  the  famine  was  that  Saul's  disre- 
gard of  the  ancestral  oath  had  brought  guilt  upon  Israel.  The 
blood  could  be  wiped  out  only  by  blood.  Who  should  suffer  if 
not  the  descendants  of  the  guilty  man?  The  Gibeonites  show  by 
their  language  that  they  are  acting  both  generously  and  justly 
in  demanding  that  seven  descendants  of  the  guilty  man  shall  be 
delivered  over  to  them  to  be  impaled  before  Yahweh  at  their 
sanctuary.1 

Their  demand  was  complied  with,  and  the  impaled  bodies 
remained  in  the  open  air  until  the  rains  began  to  fall.  The 
ghastly  story  is  relieved  by  Rizpah's  pathetic  devotion  to  the 
children  who  were  thus  treated  as  malefactors,  and  whom  she 
must  think  under  the  curse  of  God.  Through  the  weary  weeks 
she  watched  them  with  a  mother's  care.  When  the  first  rains 
proclaimed  that  Yahweh  was  reconciled,  David  showed  his  appre- 
ciation of  her  devotion  by  giving  the  bones  of  the  unfortunates 
honourable  burial.  The  fact  that  the  incident  added  to  the  sta- 
bility of  his  throne  should  not  make  us  impugn  his  motives.  So 
far  as  the  record  shows,  we  have  no  right  to  accuse  him  of  insti- 
gating the  execution.  The  consideration  which  he  showed  to 
Jonathan's  son,  Meribbaal,  is  inexplicable,  in  case  he  had  a  set 
purpose  to  exterminate  the  house  of  Saul.1  Him  he  made  a  pen- 
sioner, and  to  him  he  restored  the  property  of  Saul. 

12  Sam.  21  *"*.  The  implication  is  that  they  might  have  demanded  vic- 
tims from  Israel  at  large. 

1  Meribbaal  (the  name  has  been  disfigured  by  the  scribes  to  Mephibosheth) 
might  easily  have  been  included  among  the  execrated  sons  of  Saul,  had  that 
been  David's  wish.  Though  himself  incapable  of  reigning  (being  a  cripple) 
his  sons  might  have  proved  troublesome,  and  his  death  would  have  been  as 
much  a  matter  of  state  policy  as  the  death  of  the  others.  The  narrator  shows 
evident  interest  in  the  house  of  Saul,  2  Sam.  9,  16  *-*,  19 14-*°. 


DAVID  151 

Almost  more  strange  to  us  is  the  account  of  another  calamity 
which  fell  upon  the  people.  This  was  a  plague  which  is  said  to 
have  destroyed  tens  of  thousands  of  the  people.  The  plague  itself 
is  not  unaccountable — history  has  many  such  visitations  to  record. 
But  strange,  indeed,  is  the  Biblical  writer's  theory  concerning  it. 
He  supposes  it  to  be  a  punishment  for  a  census  taken  by  David. 
Modern  expositors  have  been  much  put  to  it  to  reconcile  such  a 
theory  with  our  view  of  the  character  of  God.  Their  conjectures 
concerning  David's  pride,  his  plans  for  military  display  or  activ- 
ity or  similar  sinful  motives  are  wholly  without  support  from  the 
text  in  our  hands.  The  truth  is  that  we  have  here  one  of  the  ideas 
common  to  primitive  religions — that  man  should  not  inquire  into 
those  secrets  which  the  gods  prefer  to  keep  to  themselves.  The 
number  of  inhabitants  of  a  country  is  such  a  secret ;  hence  the 
wrath  of  Yahweh  at  the  census.  The  difference  between  this 
point  of  view  and  that  of  the  priestly  writer,  who  gives  us  such 
elaborate  statistics  concerning  the  number  of  the  people,  must  be 
evident. 

The  account  before  us  is  interesting  from  its  bearing  on  the 
history  of  the  Temple.  Its  main  points  are  that  when  the  plague 
reached  Jerusalem  David's  intercession  for  his  people  was  heard ; 
that  the  pledge  of  favour  was  a  vision  of  the  destroying  angel 
standing  over  the  threshing-floor  of  Araunah '  the  Jebusite.  On 
this  site,  therefore,  there  was  an  altar  erected  because  of  the  vi- 
sion, and  by  later  tradition  this  altar  fixed  the  site  of  Solomon's 
Temple.  We  must  distinguish  between  different  parts  of  the 
narrative.  There  is  nothing  improbable  in  the  supposition  that 
David  erected  an  altar  in  commemoration  of  the  staying  of  the 
pestilence.  But  that  the  threshing-floor  of  Araunah  was  in  the 
immediate  vicinity  of  the  palace  of  David,  and  on  the  highest 
point  of  what  must  have  been  the  fortified  hill  of  Jerusalem,  is 
incredible.  The  site  of  Solomon's  Temple  was  determined  by 
the  location  of  his  palace.  The  altar  erected  by  David  must 
have  been  only  one  of  the  numerous  sanctuaries  of  Jerusalem  in 
this  period.  It  is  not  surprising  that  the  Temple  attached  to 
itself  legends  that  were  originally  concerned  with  other  sanctu- 
aries. 

In  the  last  days  of  David's  life,  when  his  end  seemed  near,  the 

1  The  name  is  variously  written  and  the  original  form  is  uncertain.  Chejn* 
(Enf.  Bib.  t.  v.)  proposes  to  correct  to  Adonijah. 


1 52  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

palace  was  disturbed  by  those  intrigues  with  which  we  are  too 
familiar  in  the  history  of  oriental  royal  families.  The  succession 
had  never  been  settled,  and  the  throne  would  fall  to  that  son 
who  should  be  best  able  to  maintain  himself  in  it.  To  secure  a 
following  in  the  court  was  the  object  of  the  ambitious  princes. 
Two  of  them  became  prominent  in  this  struggle.  No  doubt  it 
would  have  been  the  part  of  wisdom  for  David  to  designate 
his  successor  in  such  a  way  that  there  could  be  no  mistake.  But 
as  the  making  of  a  will  is  one  of  the  things  which  a  man  will- 
ingly postpones,  so  the  designation  of  a  successor  is  apt  to  be  put 
off  by  a  monarch.  In  David's  inexperience  it  is  not  strange 
that  he  had  neglected  to  look  forward  to  what  should  take  place 
after  his  death.1  Though  there  was  no  law  of  primogeniture,  it 
was  natural  for  Adonijah  (the  oldest  son  living)  to  look  upon  the 
throne  as  belonging  to  him.  He  therefore  began  to  assume  royal 
state  in  proportion  as  his  father  kept  in  retirement.  He  counted 
among  his  adherents  the  older  officers  of  David — Joab  and  Abia- 
thar  certainly  could  not  be  accused  of  disloyalty  to  David.  But 
Bathsheba  had  maintained  herself  as  favourite  wife  ever  since  she 
had  become  an  inmate  of  the  harem.  Her  ambition  was  to  see 
her  son  Solomon  on  the  throne — what  mother  is  not  ambitious 
for  her  children  ?  Among  his  adherents  we  find  the  priest  Zadok, 
the  prophet  Nathan,  and  the  captain  of  the  body-guard,  Benaiah. 
It  is  only  in  accordance  with  human  nature  that  the  two  priests 
should  take  opposite  sides,  and  that  the  two  generals  should  like- 
wise be  arrayed  against  each  other. 

The  older  of  the  two  princes  desired  to  make  his  position  ab- 
solutely secure.  He  therefore  invited  all  the  high  officials  (except 
those  whom  he  knew  to  be  hostile)  to  a  banquet  at  the  Serpent's 
Stone.1  The  fact  that  he  called  all  the  men  of  Judah  who  were 
officers  of  the  king  makes  it  probable  that  he  was  trying  to 
strengthen  himself  with  the  popular  party.  The  narrator  does 
not  assert  that  any  overt  act  was  committed  on  this  occasion ; 
but  the  festival  was  interpreted  by  the  conservatives  as  a  corona- 
tion feast.  Very  possibly  the  expressions  of  loyalty  to  Adonijah 

1  Mohammed  again  furnishes  a  parallel,  there  having  been  no  settlement 
of  the  question  of  his  successor. 

*A  sanctuary  is  implied  by  the  narrative.  The  location  is  given  (i  Kings, 
I  •)  as  by  the  side  of  En  Rogel.  The  latter  is  quite  generally  identified  with 
the  present  Btr  EyyAb,  in  the  Kedron  valley,  just  below  the  junction  of 
Hinnom. 


DAVID  153 

among  his  friends  in  this  harmonious  assembly  were  warmer  than 
strict  etiquette  toward  David  would  prescribe. 

Nathan,  the  court  prophet,  was  the  first  to  take  the  alarm. 
Very  likely  the  lives  of  Solomon  and  his  adherents  would  not 
have  been  safe  had  the  plans  of  Adonijah  succeeded.  Bathsheba 
was  persuaded  that  this  was  the  case  and  at  once  used  her  influence 
with  the  king.  She  reminded  him  that  he  had  promised  the  suc- 
cession to  Solomon  —  an  ambitious  mother  was  very  likely  to 
have  secured  such  a  promise  for  her  son.  That  whatever  promise 
there  was  had  been  made  privately  to  her  and  had  not  been  pub- 
lished to  the  court  is  plain  from  this  narrative. 

The  body-guard  was  loyal  to  the  old  king,  and  it  held  the 
balance  of  power.  By  David's  express  command  they  escorted 
Solomon  to  another  sacred  place,  Gihon,1  just  below  the  palace, 
and  less  than  half  a  mile  from  the  Serpent's  Stone.  Here  another 
feast  was  held  and  Solomon  was  anointed  king.  When  the 
party  returned  to  the  palace,  Solomon  was  seated  on  the  royal 
throne  and  received  the  congratulations  of  the  crowd.  The  news, 
brought  to  Adonijah  by  one  of  his  adherents,  showed  his  com- 
pany the  danger  in  which  they  were  placed,  and  they  speedily 
took  their  leave  of  an  enterprise  now  shown  to  be  of  doubtful 
success.  Adonijah  himself  fled  to  the  asylum  of  the  altar  and  re- 
ceived only  a  conditional  amnesty  from  the  new  king.  His  rash 
and  impolitic  request  for  one  of  David's  concubines  was  inter- 
preted by  Solomon  (not  unwilling  to  find  a  pretext,  we  may  sup- 
pose) as  the  assertion  of  a  claim  upon  the  throne.  The  popular 
prince  was  put  out  of  the  way,  and  his  leading  adherents  were  pun- 
ished— Joab  with  death,  Abiathar  with  deposition  from  the  priest- 
hood.1 

Soon  after  the  coronation  of  Solomon,  the  aged  king  was  called 
away.  His  life  had  been  an  eventful  one.  Few  of  his  years 
were  without  war  or  turmoil,  but  through  all  difficulties  he  ad- 
vanced to  a  position  higher  than  had  been  held  by  any  man  of 
his  race.  The  best  example  of  a  self-made  man,  is  what  he  has 
recently  been  called.  That  he  prepared  the  way  for  the  more 
showy  reign  of  Solomon  is  one  of  the  least  of  the  things  he  ac- 
complished. He  may  be  said  to  have  created  a  united  Israel. 

1  Probably  the  present  Fountain  of  the  Virgin. 

1  One  of  the  best  pieces  of  Hebrew  narrative  in  our  possession  is  this  ol 
the  accession  of  Solomon,  i  Kings,  i  and  2. 


154  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

In  his  personal  traits  David  presented  an  enigma  such  as  we 
find  in  nearly  all  great  men  of  antiquity.  His  attractive  qualities 
cannot  be  doubted.  In  an  age  when  courage  was  the  first  requi- 
site of  a  soldier,  he  was  one  of  the  most  successful  soldiers.  The 
force  of  his  character  is  seen  in  the  influence  he  exerted  over  his 
turbulent  band  of  adherents.  Such  a  leadership  implies  charm 
as  well  as  force.  He  won  the  favour  of  Saul  and  the  friendship 
of  Jonathan  ;  in  a  court  that  would  naturally  look  askance  at  him 
when  his  monarch's  jealousy  was  aroused,  he  walked  so  discreetly 
that  he  pleased  all  the  people.  His  magnanimity  is  illustrated 
in  many  of  the  stories  that  have  come  down  to  us ;  he  spared 
Saul  when  he  had  him  in  his  power ;  he  refused  the  water  which 
was  to  him  consecrated  by  the  valour  of  his  intrepid  soldiers ;  he 
was  mindful  of  his  duty  to  his  friend  Jonathan,  giving  his  son  an 
honourable  place  at  court ;  he  repaid  the  kindness  of  Barzillai 
by  attention  to  his  son  Chimham ;  not  to  mar  the  happiness  of 
his  return  to  Jerusalem,  he  spared  Shimei,  who  had  grossly  insult- 
ed him.1  In  the  light  of  these  instances  we  can  readily  see  how 
he  gained  and  kept  the  affection  of  those  nearest  him. 

The  darker  shades  of  the  picture  are  not  lacking,  and  have 
often  given  the  enemies  of  tradition  occasion  to  blaspheme.  To 
estimate  the  man  we  must  remember  that  he  was  an  oriental,  and 
therefore  sensual,  crafty,  and  cruel.  In  no  one  of  these  qualities 
did  he  fall  below  the  standard  of  the  times  in  which  he  lived. 
The  case  of  Uriah,  indeed,  shocked  the  moral  sense  of  his  contem- 
poraries. It  is  not  our  concern  to  hold  him  up  as  a  pattern  of  all 
the  virtues.  Probably  few  men  of  his  time,  however,  would  have 
gone  through  the  difficulties  which  he  encountered  and  done  so 
little  to  offend  the  conscience  of  a  later  time.* 

Later  times  made  David  a  saint  after  their  own  ideal,  a  nursing 

1  Our  account  makes  David  charge  Solomon  to  do  what  he  himself  had 
sworn  not  to  do,  by  putting  Shimei  out  of  the  way.  The  present  tendency 
among  scholars  is  to  discredit  this  story,  as  also  the  injunction  to  put  Joab 
to  death.  It  is  argued  that  a  defender  of  Solomon  wished  to  relieve  him 
from  the  odium  of  these  murders.  I  think  it  doubtful  whether  Solomon's 
friends  would  have  felt  the  need  of  defending  him  for  acts  entirely  within 
his  competency  as  ruler ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  I  think  it  extremely  prob- 
able that  David  had  a  vivid  recollection  of  the  way  in  which  he  had  been 
treated  by  both  Joab  and  Shimei. 

*  On  the  character  of  David  the  reader  will  be  interested  to  consult  Cheyne, 
Aids  to  (he  Devout  Study  of  Criticism  (1892),  Chapter  II. 


DAVID  155 

father  of  the  Old  Testament  Church,  an  organiser  of  the  Leviti- 
cal  system,  and  the  author  of  the  Psalter.  It  is  this  picture  of 
David  which  has  made  the  most  difficulty  for  modern  apologists, 
and  which  is  impossible  to  reconcile  with  the  one  we  have  just 
considered.  David's  piety  was  real,  but  it  was  in  accordance 
with  the  standard  of  his  own  times.  He  adorned  his  private 
chapel  with  the  most  sacred  object  within  his  reach.  He  doubt- 
less found  peace  and  joy  in  the  thought  of  Yahweh's  presence. 
But  of  the  Temple  as  the  unique  centre  of  Israel's  worship,  he 
had  no  thought.  Instead  of  the  elaborate  ritual  ascribed  to  him, 
he  was  content  with  the  very  modest  service  rendered  by  two 
priests.  Our  earliest  accounts  of  him  make  him  a  musician,  and 
a  musician  was  also  a  poet.  But  whatever  the  nature  of  the 
songs  which  he  sang  as  he  whirled  in  ecstasy  before  the  Ark, 
they  were  not  the  Psalms  which  have  come  down  to  us  under  his 
name.  The  dirges  over  Saul  and  over  Abner  which  have  come 
down  to  us,  have  strong  claims  to  be  considered  genuine.  But 
they  are  remarkable  chiefly  for  the  absence  of  any  such  religious 
faith  or  feeling  as  we  find  in  the  Psalter.  We  must  be  content 
with  thinking  of  David's  religion  as  of  a  very  primitive  type. 


CHAPTER  IX 

SOLOMON 

SOLOMON  BEN  DAVID  came  into  possession  of  a  united  king- 
dom,  a  full  treasury,  and  the  rule  over  various  conquered  dis- 
tricts. It  is  probable  that  he  did  not  seek  to  carry  further  the 
military  policy  of  his  father,  but  that  he  contented  himself  with 
developing  and  enjoying  the  resources  at  his  command.  Between 
the  lines  of  the  narrative  which  has  come  down  to  us  we  are  able 
to  read  that  his  method  was  that  of  the  average  oriental  despot. 
The  first  impression  made  by  the  record  is  different.  Hebrew 
writers  of  a  later  time,  themselves  oppressed  and  impoverished, 
looked  back  at  Solomon's  reign  as,  in  more  senses  than  one,  a 
golden  age.  They  were  dazzled  by  the  extent  of  his  kingdom 
(which  indeed  they  imagined  to  be  greater  than  it  really  was) 
and  by  the  amount  of  his  wealth — he  made  silver  in  Jerusalem 
like  stones,  and  cedar  timber  like  the  sycomores  of  the  Shephela. 
This  estimate  has  passed  current  to  our  own  times. 

Whether  the  statements  of  the  king's  wealth  and  luxury  are 
more  or  less  exaggerated  is  a  minor  matter.  The  point  that  in- 
terests us,  and  which  the  narrative  sufficiently  brings  out,  is  the 
mistaken  statecraft  of  the  ruler  whose  motto  might  well  have 
been  :  The  state — I  am  the  state.  In  this  view,  a  kingdom  is  the 
private  estate  of  the  monarch,  to  be  exploited  for  his  personal 
gain,  or  according  to  his  personal  fancy.  Heavy  taxes  were  laid 
upon  the  tribes,1  and  the  free  Israelites  were  made  to  render  un- 
paid service  in  the  forests  and  the  mines.  Trade  and  commerce 
were  indeed  fostered,  but  they  were  the  king's  enterprises, 
whose  profits  went  into  his  own  treasury.  That  the  personal 
wealth  of  the  king  became  enormous  need  not  excite  our  wonder. 

The  list  of  Solomon's  officers1  shows  at  once  the  greater  com- 
plexity of  his  establishment  as  compared  with  that  of  David. 

1  Judah,  the  king's  own  tribe,  was  perhaps  exempt. 

*  I  Kings,  4.  Gray  acutely  conjectures,  from  the  form  of  the  names,  that 
many  of  these  officers  were  foreigners  ;  Hebrew  Proper  Names  (1896),  p.  73. 

156 


SOLOMON  157 

We  find  now  a  special  officer  set  over  the  provincial  governors, 
and  also  a  steward  of  the  palace.  But  the  most  radical  innova- 
tion was  the  partition  of  the  kingdom  into  twelve  districts,  over 
each  of  which  a  pasha  was  appointed.  The  twelve  districts  did 
not  correspond  to  the  tribal  divisions,  as  these  are  commonly 
given  by  tradition.  But  we  must  remember  that  the  tribes  were 
never  strictly  defined  geographical  divisions,  whereas  for  the 
purposes  of  taxation  the  districts  must  be  rigidly  defined.1  We 
might  suspect  the  tribal  boundaries  ignored  with  the  purpose 
of  breaking  them  down,  and  so  reducing  the  nation  to  uni- 
formity. But  this  would  be  attributing  to  Solomon  a  foresight  of 
which  he  gave  no  other  evidence. 

By  what  we  should  regard  as  a  crude  arrangement,  each  of 
these  pashas  supplied  the  palace  with  provisions  one  month  in 
the  year.*  No  more  recondite  reason  for  the  number  of  districts 
need  be  sought  than  the  fact  that  there  are  twelve  months  in  the 
year.  The  taxes  were  levied  and  paid  in  kind.  We  hear  nothing 
of  any  fixed  rate,  but  there  are  some  indications  that  a  tenth  of 
the  produce  was  the  ordinary  amount.8  We  may  suppose  that 
the  method  of  collection  was  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  officer 
in  charge.  The  way  was  thus  opened  to  extortion  and  oppres- 
sion. We  must  remember,  also,  that  the  levying  of  direct  taxes 
has  always  been  objected  to  in  the  East.  The  sovereign  has  his 
private  estate,  and  a  share  of  the  booty  taken  in  war — why  should 
he  take  the  property  of  his  subjects  ?  From  this  point  of  view 
the  offensiveness  of  the  new  order  in  Israel  can  be  imagined. 

More  offensive,  no  doubt,  was  the  corvee.  This  institution 
is  apparently  as  old  as  the  monarchy  in  the  East — Egypt  has 
employed  it  from  earliest  times.  It  goes  upon  the  theory  that 
the  subjects  of  a  monarch  are  his  slaves,  and  are  bound  to  do 
his  work  without  pay.  So  Samuel  threatens  the  people  that  the 
king  whom  they  desire  will  impress  their  sons  to  do  his  ploughing 

1  The  twelve  divisions  of  Solomon  may  have  helped  fix  the  tradition  of 
twelve  tribes  of  Israel — which  never  were  twelve  in  fact;  cf.  Luther,  "  Die 
Israelitische  Stamme  "  in  the  2Zeitsch.f.  d.  Alttest.  Wissensch.,  XXI,  p.  33  ff. 

•The  months  were,  of  coarse,  lunar  months.  This  necessitated  interca- 
lation of  a  thirteenth  month  about  once  in  three  years.  Who  was  responsible 
for  this  thirteenth  month?  Was  Judah  then  called  upon?  It  would  be 
interesting  to  have  more  details. 

*  In  the  passage  alluded  to  below,  Samuel  threatens  the  people  that  the 
king  will  tithe  their  fields  and  vineyards,  I  Sam.  8  1&. 


158  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

and  reaping,  and  to  run  before  his  chariots.  The  women,  also, 
will  be  compelled  to  serve  as  embroiderers  and  as  cooks.  The  re- 
sult will  be  to  make  the  Israelites  slaves  instead  of  freemen.  The 
threat  here  put  into  the  mouth  of  Samuel  is  a  composition  of  very 
late  date ;  but  it  represents,  probably  enough,  the  feeling  of  the 
people  under  every  despotic  ruler  during  their  history. 

Had  Solomon  contented  himself  with  requiring  service  for 
works  of  public  utility  in  his  own  country,  it  would  not  have 
been  so  bad.  But  he  made  a  levy  for  service  on  foreign  soil. 
The  oldest  statement  on  the  subject  seems  to  be  that  he  enlisted 
thirty  thousand  men  for  the  work  in  Lebanon,  dividing  them 
into  three  sections,  each  of  which  was  on  duty  one  month  at  a 
time.  We  have,  however,  an  additional  statement  that  there 
were  also  seventy  thousand  carriers,  and  eighty  thousand  stone- 
cutters in  the  mountains.1  There  is  nothing  incredible  in  these 
figures.  For  the  building  of  the  temple,  in  connexion  with 
which  the  Biblical  author  makes  the  statement,  the  figures  are, 
no  doubt,  too  large,  but  when  we  consider  the  multitude  of  other 
works  undertaken  by  the  king,  they  do  not  seem  exaggerated. 
The  building  mania,  which  had  so  often  brought  monarchs  into 
difficulty,  attacked  Solomon.  He  not  only  rebuilt  his  capital, 
but  he  fortified  various  cities  of  military  importance.1  The  nar- 
rator knows  also  of  other  cities,  cities  for  the  chariot  force,  cities 
where  the  supplies  were  stored,  in  all  of  which  building  would 
be  undertaken  on  a  large  scale.  It  should  be  noticed  that  the 
writer  tries  to  shield  the  king  from  the  charge  of  enslaving  Israel* 
by  insisting  that  he  put  to  labour  only  the  remnant  of  the  Ca- 
naanites.  But,  as  we  have  seen,  a  large  part  of  Israel  was  of 
mixed  blood  ;  the  Canaanitish  elements  had  been  assimilated,  so 
that  any  endeavour  to  impress  these  alone  would  infallibly  affect 
Israelites  also.  And  the  revolt  of  ten  tribes  of  Israel  after  Solo- 
mon's death  was  based  on  the  fact  that  the  yoke  had  pressed 
heavily  on  all  alike. 

1 1  Kings,  5  *'-M.  Two  statements  by  different  authors  are  here  combined. 
One  refers  to  the  work  in  the  Lebanon  region,  the  other  to  the  work  carried 
on  in  Palestine  itself.  As  we  find  an  officer  of  David's  "  over  the  forced 
labour "  (2  Sam.  20 ")  it  is  probable  that  David  introduced  the  system,  but 
he  cannot  have  carried  it  to  such  lengths  as  Solomon. 

1  I  Kings,  9 1W*.  The  cities  named  are  at  strategic  points.  They  are  all 
in  Palestine,  so  we  need  not  longer  cherish  the  extravagant  hypothesis  which 
identifies  one  of  them  with  Palmyra. 


SOLOMON  159 

The  life  of  Solomon  presents  itself  to  us,  therefore,  as  that  of  a 
decidedly  worldly  prince.  The  king's  pride  was  his  wealth, 
his  costly  buildings,  his  stores  of  treasure.  The  useless  luxury 
of  gold  shields  for  his  body-guard  throws  light  upon  his  taste 
and  his  aspirations.  He  thought  to  vie  with  the  kings  of  the 
world  in  pomp  and  luxury.  The  monarch  with  whom  he  came 
most  closely  into  contact  was  Hiram  of  Tyre — possessor  of  a  small 
country,  but  of  great  wealth.1  The  relation  of  the  two  mon- 
archs  is  not  altogether  clear.  The  statement  that  Solomon  deliv- 
ered to  the  Tyrian  a  large  amount  of  grain  and  oil  yearly,  looks 
as  though  he  were  tributary,  and  the  fact  that  later  he  ceded  a 
considerable  strip  of  territory  also  indicates  that  the  Phoenicians 
had  the  advantage  What  Solomon  gained  by  the  alliance  was 
knowledge  of  the  Phoenician  manner  of  trading.  As  ruler  of 
Edom  he  had  possession  of  the  port  of  Eloth,  at  the  head  of  the 
gulf  of  Akaba.  Here  he  built  ships  and  sent  his  own  servants, 
under  Phoenician  masters,  to  trade  with  Arabia.  The  profits 
went  into  the  king's  coffers.  As  Arabia  was  a  gold -producing 
country,  we  need  not  suppose  that  South  Africa  was  reached 
by  these  fleets.  Whether  the  commerce  of  India  reached  him  by 
this  route  is  not  certain.  The  list  of  products  imported  has  some- 
times been  interpreted  in  this  sense.  But  one  or  two  obscure 
words  in  a  comparatively  late  text  can  hardly  establish  the  con- 
clusion. The  money  value  of  the  importations,  four  hundred 
and  twenty  talents  in  a  single  voyage,  must  be  viewed  with  sus- 
picion.1 

Horses  and  chariots  had  never  been  adopted  by  the  Israelites, 
owing  to  the  nature  of  their  country.  David  hamstrung  the 
horses  he  captured  in  war,  reserving  only  a  few  for  purposes  of 

1  What  tradition  tells  about  Hiram  has  been  gathered  by  Movers,  Die 
Pkonititr,  II,  I,  p.  326  ff.  Our  main  authority  is  Josephus,  who  quotes 
from  Greek  historians.  The  letters  of  Solomon  and  Hiram,  with  which  the 
history  is  embellished  (Antiq.,  VIII,  50-56)  are  evidently  Josephus's  own 
composition. 

*  I  Kings,  9W;  cf.  iou,  where  a  much  larger  sum  is  given  as  the  king's 
income  for  a  year.  Such  data  cannot  be  more  than  conjectures.  The  Kings 
of  Babylon  and  of  Egypt  engaged  in  commerce  on  their  own  account,  cf. 
Winckler  in  Schrader,  Keilinschriften  und  Altei  Testament  *,  p.  238. 
Winckler  thinks  that  Solomon  engaged  in  these  expeditions  as  Hiram's  vas- 
sal, but  there  seems  to  be  no  evidence  of  this.  His  cession  of  twenty  vil- 
lages (i  Kings,  9")  only  shows  that  Hiram  was  shrewd  enough  to  get  his 
partner  into  his  debt. 


I(5O  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

show.  Solomon  was  the  first  to  make  extensive  importation  of 
horses  and  chariots.  Even  here  he  seems  to  have  had  an  eye  to 
the  profits,  for  the  Syrian  countries  were  the  source  of  supply 
for  Egypt,  and  the  king  might  make  this  trade  as  well  as  the 
Arabian  a  monopoly.1 

If  we  may  credit  the  Hebrew  accounts,  Solomon  went  beyond 
any  ancient  monarch  in  the  luxury  of  the  harem.  The  enormous 
number  of  wives  and  concubines  attributed  to  him  must  be  made 
up  by  counting  all  the  female  slaves  of  the  palace  among  the 
concubines.  Even  then  the  figures  must  be  grossly  exaggerated.1 
The  desire  to  cement  alliances  with  his  neighbours  led  him  to 
take  a  large  number  of  foreign  princesses.  The  chief  of  these 
was  the  daughter  of  the  reigning  Pharaoh.  Her  father  cap- 
tured the  town  of  Gezer,  till  then  unsubdued  by  the  Israelites, 
and  gave  it  to  her  as  a  marriage  portion.  The  great  king- 
dom of  Egypt  always  looked  down  upon  all  smaller  countries, 
and  doubt  has  been  thrown  upon  our  account  for  this  reason. 
But  Palestine  under  a  single  ruler  was  a  neighbour  whose  friend- 
ship was  well  worth  cultivating.  The  importance  which  this 
wife  had  in  Solomon's  eyes  is  seen  by  the  fact  that  he  built  a 
separate  palace  for  her  alone,  out  of  all  the  list.8  As  it  turned 
out,  a  change  of  dynasty  in  Egypt  made  the  alliance  of  short 
duration. 

Next  to  his  wealth  (illustrated  in  his  harem),  the  wisdom  of 
Solomon  is  emphasised  by  the  sacred  writer.  No  doubt  the  av- 
erage man  associates  the  wealth  and  the  wisdom.  Solomon  could 
not  so  successfully  have  exploited  his  kingdom  unless  he  had  un- 
common ability — this  is  the  reasoning  which  first  led  men  to  call 
the  king  wise.  This  reputation  once  established,  tradition  inter- 
preted the  wisdom  more  generously.  The  ruler  who  is  chief 

'The  original  text  (I  Kings,  io18)  is  probably  to  be  corrected,  according 
to  Winckler's  conjecture,  so  as  to  state  that  the  importers  of  horses  brought 
them  from  Mu9ri  and  Kue,  countries  of  North  Syria.  The  forwarding  to 
Egypt  is  therefore  not  indicated  in  the  text,  though  it  may  be  conjectured. 

*  The  received  text  gives  700  wives  and  300  concubines.  The  two  items 
are  not  in  the  right  proportion,  and  we  are  inclined  to  suspect  that  70  wives 
and  300  concubines  was  the  original  statement  (so  Klostermann  conjectures 
in  his  commentary). 

'  A  discussion  of  which  particular  Pharaoh  honored  Solomon  with  his  alli- 
ance will  be  found  in  the  Zeitschrift  der  Deutschen  Morgenl.  Gtsellschaft, 
LIV,  p.  24  f. 


SOLOMON  l6l 

justice  of  his  people  needs  shrewdness  to  detect  the  false  pleas 
that  will  be  brought  before  him.  The  example  of  the  two  women 
whose  case  he  decided  shows  that  the  king  was  credited  with 
practical  common-sense  and  knowledge  of  human  nature  in  his 
administration  of  justice.  The  example  before  us  may  be  classed 
with  Sancho  Panza's  skilful  adjudication  of  the  test  cases  brought 
before  him  when  he  assumed  the  government  of  his  island. 
Many  an  Arab  Emir  shows  similar  mother-wit  in  dealing  with 
litigants. 

In  allowing  Solomon  so  much  wisdom,  we  need  not  discredit 
the  tradition  which  ascribes  to  him  the  composition  of  apothegms 
such  as  are  contained  in  our  book  of  Proverbs.  Sententious  say- 
ing, enigmas  to  test  the  wit  of  the  social  circle,  maxims  for  the 
conduct  of  life,  have  been  the  stock-in-trade  of  oriental  sages 
from  very  early  times.  While  it  is  impossible  with  any  certainty 
to  affirm  that  a  single  one  of  the  Proverbs  comes  from  Solomon, 
the  book  shows  the  kind  of  wisdom  ascribed  to  him,  and  which 
he  very  likely  possessed.  The  questions  and  answers  with  which 
he  astonished  the  Queen  of  Sheba  were  enigmas  and  riddles  such 
as  the  East  delights  in  to  the  present  day.  Intellectual  keenness 
is  doubtless  quickened  by  them,  but  they  make  no  permanent 
contribution  to  man's  store  of  knowledge.  Our  botanical  sci- 
ence need  not  mourn  the  loss  of  Solomon's  sayings  concerning 
trees,  "  from  the  cedar  in  Lebanon  to  the  hyssop  that  grows  out 
of  the  wall." 

More  important  for  posterity  than  either  Solomon's  wisdom  or 
his  wealth  was  the  Temple.  This  importance,  however,  was  not 
dreamed  of  by  Solomon  himself.  To  him  the  Temple  was  only 
one,  and  that  not  the  chief  one,  of  the  many  buildings  which  he 
erected.  In  the  adornment  of  his  capital  he  planned  for  the 
extension  and  rebuilding  of  the  city  wall  and  the  erection  of 
an  extensive  group  of  buildings  which  we  might  call  his  castle. 
This  group  included  not  only  the  king's  residence,  the  palace  for 
his  chief  wife,  and  the  apartments  of  his  other  wives,  but  also  a 
great  hall  of  audience  for  state  occasions,  a  smaller  hall  of  judgment, 
and  the  Temple.  The  whole  group  was  surrounded  by  a  single 
wall  which  made  it  a  citadel.  The  site  was  in  all  probability  that 
of  David's  citadel,  only  enlarged  by  taking  in  more  of  the  hill. 
Retaining  walls  such  as  were  afterward  built  by  Herod  would 
make  the  ground  sufficiently  level.  But  that  the  natural  uneven- 


162  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

ness  of  the  site  was  not  wholly  overcome,  is  indicated  by  the 
constancy  of  usage  which  speaks  of  going  up  from  the  palace  to 
the  Temple.1  We  may  suppose,  therefore,  that  the  highest 
part  of  the  hill  was  occupied  by  the  sanctuary — as  was  the  case 
also  with  the  village  high  places.  Next  to  it  on  the  south  was 
the  palace,  lower  down  were  the  houses  of  the  town. 

The  Old  Testament  writer  does  not  make  the  arrangement  of 
the  buildings  altogether  clear.  In  the  nature  of  things  we  should 
expect  the  great  audience  hall  to  be  at  the  south  side — thus  more 
accessible  to  the  people.  This  hall,  from  the  number  of  cedar 
columns  it  contained,  was  called  the  House  of  the  Forest  of 
Lebanon.  It  has  been  plausibly  supposed  that  its  upper  story 
was  used  as  an  armory.  Its  dimensions  are  given  as  one  hundred 
cubits  by  fifty.1  From  this  great  hall  opened  a  smaller  room 
also  supported  by  columns.  This  served  as  antechamber  to  the 
throne  room,  which  was  also  the  judgment  seat  of  the  king.  The 
throne  itself  was  esteemed  a  marvel  of  art,  made  of  gold  and 
ivory,  decorated  with  the  figures  of  lions  and  of  bulls. 

Of  the  palace  proper — the  residence  of  the  king  and  his  house- 
hold— the  author  can  tell  us  nothing.  All  the  more  detailed  is 
his  account  of  the  Temple.  The  importance  which  this  build- 
ing assumed  in  later  history  justifies  his  pains.  It  was,  to  be 
sure,  not  the  King's  purpose  to  build  the  single  legitimate  place 
of  worship  for  all  Israel.  The  Temple  was  to  him  one  part  of 
his  castle — not  exactly  his  private  chapel,  but  the  cathedral  of 
his  capital.  Such  a  sanctuary  might  overshadow,  it  was  not 
expected  to  supersede,  others  already  in  existence.  The  parallel 
between  him  and  his  father  is  exact.  As  David  by  bringing  the 
Ark  to  Jerusalem  did  not  interfere  with  the  other  sacred  places  of 
the  land,  so  Solomon  in  giving  the  Ark  a  more  gorgeous  place  of 
residence  had  no  exclusive  purpose.  In  the  time  of  David,  we 
find  no  surprise  expressed  that  Absalom  should  vow  a  vow  to  the 
Yahweh  of  Hebron  ;  and  both  Adonijah  and  Solomon  hold 
their  festivals  at  other  shrines  than  the  one  in  the  palace.  In 
like  manner  Solomon  gives  proof  of  his  esteem  for  other  sanctu- 
aries than  the  one  at  Jerusalem,  by  going  to  Gibeon  to  worship. 

1  2  Kings,  19",  20*,  23*,  Jer.  26  I0. 

1  Say  170  feet  by  85,  I  Kings,  7*.  A  ground  plan  showing  a  plausible  re- 
construction of  the  whole  group  of  buildings  fs  given  by  Stade,  Ceschichte, 
I,  p.  305;  cf.  also  Benzinger's  Commentary  on  i  Kings.  5. 


SOLOMON  163 

Here  in  an  ancient  Canaanitish  city  was  a  famous  place  of  wor- 
ship dedicated  to  Yahweh,  which  we  have  already  had  occasion 
to  notice.  Hither,  therefore,  came  the  young  king  to  offer  his 
sacrifices  and  to  seek  God's  revelation.1 

This  example  is  significant,  because  it  shows  that  the  thought 
of  a  single  legitimate  sanctuary  was  far  from  the  king's  mind.  It 
may  be  said  indeed  that  the  Temple  was  not  yet  built — such  a 
plea  is  in  fact  made  by  the  Deuteronomic  editor  of  the  Book  of 
Kings.  But  the  Ark  was  in  existence,  it  was  in  the  palace  of 
David,  it  was  now  in  the  possession  of  Solomon.  Yet  he  chose 
to  visit  the  ancient  and  celebrated  shrine  at  Gibeon.  His  inten- 
tion not  to  displace  the  older  high  places  could  not  be  more  ex- 
plicitly set  before  us.  Even  in  Jerusalem  numerous  other  altars 
existed  down  to  the  time  of  the  Exile. 

As  we  have  seen,  the  site  of  the  Temple  was  the  summit  of 
the  hill  on  which  Jerusalem  was  built.  The  Hardm  es- Sheriff. 
Jerusalem  still  retains  its  ancient  sacredness.  In  this  large  area, 
the  central  object  covered  by  the  Dome  of  the  Rock  is  the  orig- 
inal summit  of  the  hill.  As  the  sacredness  of  hill-tops  is  abun- 
dantly shown  in  the  history  of  Semitic  religion,  we  are  author- 
ised to  conclude  that  this  native  summit  is  the  original  reason 
for  the  consecration  of  the  place.  We  may  go  further,  and  con- 
clude that  it  was  already  consecrated  to  the  genius  loci  before 
David's  capture  of  the  city.  In  that  case  Yahweh  simply  adopted 
the  locality  already  occupied  by  another  god — as  at  Gibdbn  he 
had  displaced  the  local  Baal  or  become  merged  in  him.  This 
process  of  amalgamation,  as  we  know,  went  on  at  many  places 
throughout  the  country.  Parallels  in  the  history  of  religion  are 
abundant.  The  mosques  of  Islam  are  in  many  places  the  older 
sanctuaries — some  of  the  most  notable  having  been  Christian 
churches.  Christian  churches  often  represent  ancient  heathen 
temples.  The  welis  or  tombs  of  saints  throughout  Syria  are  the 
successors  of  shrines  originally  consecrated  to  Baal  or  Astarte. 

To  erect  a  permanent  building  for  Yahweh  is  treated  by  at 
least  some  of  the  Hebrew  writers  as  an  innovation.  This  is 
hardly  correct,  as  the  sanctuary  at  Shiloh  had  doors,  and  a  cham- 

1  Although  it  is  not  expressly  so  asserted,  we  may  suppose  that  Solomon 
slept  in  the  sanctuary  in  order  to  receive  the  revelation  by  a  dream.  This 
practice  of  incubation  was  widely  spread  in  antiquity.  Cf.  Wiedemann, 
Religion  of  ike  Ancient  Egyptians,  p.  189. 


164  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

ber  in  which  the  Ark  was  kept.  Micah  also  had  a  house  for  hfc 
image.  But  no  doubt  the  desert  God  had  for  the  most  part  lived 
in  a  tent.  In  the  majority  of  Canaanitish  sanctuaries  the  sacred 
object  was  in  the  open  air,  though  chambers  were  often  built  for 
the  convenience  of  those  eating  the  sacrificial  meal.1  The  altar 
must,  of  course,  be  in  the  open  air. 

It  is  perhaps  not  without  significance  for  our  history,  that 
Hiram  of  Tyre  was  a  great  temple  builder.  We  can  see  how  his 
example  might  influence  Solomon.  Unfortunately,  no  Phoeni- 
cian temple  has  been  preserved  to  us.  But  there  are  some  indi- 
cations that  the  plan  of  Solomon's  Temple  and  its  ornamentation 
followed  Phoenician  models.2 

The  essential  thing  in  all  the  High-places  was  the  sacred  enclos- 
ure, within  which  was  the  altar  and  the  object  of  worship.  When 
the  worshipper  thought  of  the  sanctuary  it  was  this  area  which 
he  had  in  mind — the  Hardm  at  Mecca  is  a  familiar  example.  In 
this  enclosure  Solomon  chose  to  place  a  building,  as  a  residence 
for  the  divinity.  Its  essential  part  was  a  chamber  twenty  cubits 
on  a  side — cubes  play  a  part  in  Semitic  religion  elsewhere,  the 
Kaaba  being  the  most  conspicuous  example.  In  this  inner  cham- 
ber the  Ark — and  it  alone — was  kept.  The  doors  into  the  ante- 
room were  usually  left  open,  as  we  may  infer  from  the  way  in 
which  the  Hebrew  writer  speaks  of  the  staves  of  the  Ark  being 
seen s  from  the  outer  room. 

The  outer  room  was  twice  as  long  as  the  inner,  but  of  the 
same  breadth  and  height.  It  was  provided  with  a  table  for  the 
sacred  bread,  and  probably  with  a  lamp.*  The  altar  of  incense 
seems  to  be  a  later  addition.  In  front  of  the  ante-room  was  a 
vestibule  ten  cubits  deep.  Around  three  sides  of  the  building 
was  a  series  of  small  chambers  arranged  in  three  storeys.  These 
were  store-roorns  for  the  convenience  of  the  priests,  and  probably 

I  As  at  Samuel's  home,  i  Sam.  9 M. 

*  The  simple  cella  which  constitutes  the  temple  of  Amrit  is,  in  idea,  the 
Most  Holy  place  of  Solomon's  Temple.  See  Perrot  and  Chipiez,  History  of 
Art  in  Phetnicia  (1885),  p.  105. 

I 1  Kings,  8  8.    The  verse  is  not  altogether  clear,  but  warrants  this  conclu- 
sion. 

4  If  the  modest  temple  of  Shiloh  kept  a  lamp  burning,  it  is  probable  that 
Solomon's  was  at  least  as  well  furnished.  The  statement  concerning  the 
ten  golden  lamps,  however,  i  Kings,  7  *9,  must  be  taken  to  be  a  late  insertion 
in  the  tezjL 


SOLOMON  165 

of  the  king  himself.  The  royal  treasures  would  nowhere  be  more 
safe  than  in  the  immediate  presence  of  the  divinity.  Contribu- 
tions to  the  Temple  were  paid  in  kind ;  votive  offerings  would 
come  in  abundance  in  the  course  of  time ;  the  vestments  and 
implements  of  service  must  be  kept  within  the  sacred  area;  per- 
haps the  sanctuary  was  early  made  a  place  of  safe  keeping  for 
valuables  belonging  to  individuals,  as  we  know  it  was  in  later 
times.  The  need  of  such  chambers  is  thus  easily  conceived. 

The  house  was  built  to  face  the  east.  Its  walls  were  massive, 
of  hewn  stone.  The  stone  was  cut  and  fitted  before  it  was  brought 
to  the  spot  where  it  was  to  be  used.  Doubtless  this  was  in  defer- 
ence to  a  superstition  concerning  the  use  of  iron  in  building  a 
sacred  house.  The  oldest  legislation  of  the  Hebrews  forbids 
building  an  altar  of  hewn  stone,  because  the  lifting  of  a  tool  upon 
it  defiles  it.1  The  interior  was  panelled  with  cedar  wood.  The 
statements  concerning  figures  carved  in  the  panels,  and  concern- 
ing the  gold  overlaying  are  apparently  late  insertions  into  the  text. 

The  implements  of  service  were  cast  in  copper  by  a  Phoenician 
artificer.  Among  these  the  first  place  must  be  given  to  the  two 
great  pillars  which  stood  at  each  side  of  the  door.  These  were 
about  thirty  feet  high,  and  had  a  diameter  of  six  feet.  Each  of 
them  had  an  elaborate  capital  ornamented  with  pomegranates. 
Their  importance  was  such  that  they  received  names,  one  being 
called  Jachin  and  the  other  Boaz.  These  names  are  as  yet  un- 
explained, and  have  perhaps  been  mutilated.1  We  must  see  in 
these  columns  enlarged  examples  of  the  matfeboth  or  pillars  which 
always  stood  by  the  altars  of  Yahweh  in  the  early  time,  but  which 
later  times  rejected  as  idolatrous.  Parallels  are  found  in  the  pil- 
lars which  stood  before  the  temple  of  Melkarth  at  Tyre,  and  those 

1  Ex.  zo15.  Until  very  recent  times  traces  of  the  same  idea  were  found  in 
the  East.  Thus,  the  smiths  constitute  a  separate  class,  caste,  or  clan,  in 
almost  all  oriental  countries.  The  reluctance  to  have  surgical  operations 
performed  is  motived  by  a  dread  of  the  uncanny  properties  of  iron,  Russell's 
Aleppo*  (1794),  II,  p.  136.  Abundant  parallels  from  other  religions  will  be 
found  in  Frazer,  The  Golden  Bough*,  I,  pp.  344-352. 

1  Conjectural  emendations  are  given  by  Cheyne,  Enc.  Bib.  col.  2304. 
Sketches  of  the  pillars,  or  a  plausible  reproduction,  may  be  seen  in  Stade, 
Getchichte,  I,  p.  332 ;  in  Kittel,  Handkommentar,  p.  62 ;  Benzinger,  Dit 
Biicher  der  Konige,  p.  44,  and  in  Schick,  Sliflshutte,  Tempel  und  Tempel- 
flatz  (1896),  p.  83.  The  last-named  work  is  of  great  value  because  writ- 
ten by  an  architect  who  has  spent  most  of  his  life  in  Jerusalem.  It  pro 
ceeds,  however,  on  an  entirely  uncritical  view  of  the  Hebrew  text. 


l66  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

which  the  author  of  the  treatise  on  the  Syrian  Goddess l  saw  at 
Hierapolis,  and  which  he  took  to  be  phalli. 

Next  in  importance  to  these  must  be  rated  the  great  tank  called 
the  Sea.  The  description  is  of  a  round  reservoir  ten  cubits  in 
diameter  and  five  deep,  made  of  copper  mounted  on  twelve  bulls 
of  the  same  metal.  Three  of  the  bulls  faced  each  point  of  the 
compass.  As  twelve  is  an  astronomical  number,  it  may  not  be 
too  bold  to  see  in  these  bulls  symbols  of  the  constellations,  in 
which  case  the  Sea  is  a  symbol  of  the  great  celestial  reservoir 
from  which  the  earth  is  watered.  Similar  ' '  seas  ' '  are  mentioned 
in  Assyrian  temples,  and  large  vases  of  stone  found  in  Phoeni- 
cian sanctuaries  may  be  brought  into  the  same  class.1  The  sa- 
credness  of  water  has  always  been  emphasised  in  the  East,  as  is 
seen  in  the  worship  of  springs,  to  which  the  Old  Testament  itself 
testifies.  This  alone  would  account  for  the  great  Sea  in  the 
Temple.  For  the  practical  purpose  of  ablution  ten  smaller  tanks 
(lavers)  were  provided,  each  holding  forty  baths.8  Each  of 
these  was  provided  with  a  waggon  on  four  wheels  so  that  it  could 
be  moved  from  place  to  place  as  wanted.  They  were  ornamented 
with  figures  in  relief,  of  lions,  bulls,  cherubs,  and  palm  trees. 
The  bulls  were  sacred  to  Yahweh  (or  Baal),  lions  were  the  sym- 
bol of  Astarte,  the  cherubs  were  well-known  mythological  figures, 
and  the  palms  were  also  probably  sacred.  The  significance  of 
the  ornamentation,  therefore,  is  plain  ;  it  indicated  a  syncretistic 
purpose  in  the  building  of  the  Temple.  The  multitude  of  smaller 
implements,  pots,  shovels,  bowls,  need  not  detain  us,  but  we  may 
notice  the  table  for  the  twelve  loaves  of  bread  kept  constantly 
before  the  face  of  Yahweh.  This  "  bread  of  the  presence  "  is  as 

1  This  is  reckoned  among  the  works  of  Lucian.  The  reference  is  De  Dea 
Syria,  XVI.  The  two  pillars  at  Tyre  are  mentioned  by  Herodotus,  II,  44. 
See  also  the  fa9ade  of  the  temple  of  Paphos,  showing  two  similar  pillars,  in 
Perrot  and  Chipiez,  Art  in  Phoenicia,  p.  123. 

1  Reconstruction  in  Stade's  Geschichte,  I,  p.  336  (copied  by  Benzinger). 
Compare  the  Amathus  vase  (nine  feet  in  diameter)  pictured  in  Perrot  and 
Chipiez,  Phoenicia,  p.  290. 

'This  amounts  to  over  four  hundred  gallons  for  each.  Figures  of  these 
"lavers"  and  their  bases  are  given  in  Stade,  Geschichte,  I,  p.  341,  and 
Benzinger,  p.  49.  Cf.  also  the  later  study  by  Stade  in  the  Zeitschr.  fiir  die 
Alttest.  fVissensfA,\Xl  (1901),  pp.  145-190.  This  illustrates  its  subject  by 
the  bronze  "bases"  recently  discovered  in  Cyprus,  which  are  quite  similar 
{except  in  size)  to  those  in  the  Temple.  On  reservoirs  of  water  in  Baby- 
lonian temples  see  Keilimchr.  und  Altes  Test.,  *  p.  525. 


SOLOMON  167 

old  as  the  time  of  David,  i  Sam.  21  *•*,  though  Babylonian  paral- 
lels are  cited.1 

The  cherubim  are  important  for  their  association  with  other 
parts  of  the  sanctuary.  Two  of  them,  of  gigantic  size,  were 
placed  in  the  Most  Holy  Place,  where,  with  their  outstretched 
wings,  they  overshadowed  or  shielded  the  Ark.  From  indica- 
tions in  other  parts  of  Scripture,  we  gather  that  they  were  com- 
posite figures,  intended  to  represent  guardian  demons  or  deities.* 
The  winged  bulls  with  human  heads,  so  common  in  Assyria,  are 
analogous,  and  may  be  the  originals.  But  other  religions  show 
similar  fantastic  creations. 

Our  account  of  the  temple  and  its  furniture  makes  no  mention 
of  the  altar,  or  rather,  it  makes  an  allusion  without  a  description.' 
It  is  usually  supposed  that  this  is  due  to  a  late  scribe  who  left  out 
the  description  of  the  altar  to  make  room  for  the  old  altar  of  the 
Tabernacle,  which  he  supposed  to  be  transferred  to  the  Temple. 
So  violent  a  procedure,  however,  must  not  be  assumed  without 
strong  evidence.  Even  if  a  copyist  had  been  bold  enough  to 
make  the  omission,  he  would  have  given  us  distinct  information 
that  the  old  altar  was  found  sufficient.  On  the  same  principle, 
he  should  have  left  out  the  table  of  shewbread.  It  remains  prob- 
able, therefore,  that  the  original  account  said  nothing  of  the 
altar.  How  can  this  be  possible?  Looking  carefully  at  the 
narrative,  we  discover  at  the  end  of  the  prayer  of  dedication, 
this  curious  statement:  "  In  that  day  Solomon  consecrated  the 
middle  of  the  court  which  is  before  the  Temple  of  Yahweh,  for 
he  offered  there  the  burnt -offering,  and  the  fat  of  the  peace-offer- 
ing." The  second  half  of  the  verse,  which  assigns  the  smallness 
of  the  copper  altar  as  the  reason  for  the  king's  act,  may  be  only 
the  late  author's  endeavour  to  account  for  a  fact  which  had  come 
down  to  him  by  tradition.* 

I  Keilinschr.  und  A  lies  Test.,  *  p.  600.     The  number  twelve  is  common  to 
the  two  religions. 

*  The  word  cherub  is   not   yet  satisfactorily  explained.     On    the  Biblical 
conception  the  best  discussion  seems  to  be  that  of  Vatke,  Biblische  Theologie, 
I,  pp.  325-334.     Compare  also  the    articles   in   recent    Bible    Dictionaries. 
Winged   figures  in  Phoenician    art  are  illustrated   by  Perrot   and   Chipier, 
Phoenicia,  p.  134.      It  should  be  noted  that  lions  are  often  used  in  decoration 
in  Phoenician  art,  as  in  the  Temple. 

I 1  Kings,  9  **.     The  verse  is  an  insertion  in  the  text. 

*  The  verse  is  I   Kings.  8**.     The  context   is   recognised  to  be  of  poet* 
Deutcronomic  authorship. 


168  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

It  may  be  doubted,  further,  whether  a  late  author  would  have 
invented  a  statement  of  this  kind.  In  the  middle  of  the  court 
was  the  precise  spot  where  the  altar  should  have  stood.  Did 
Solomon  remove  the  altar  after  it  was  once  set  in  place  ?  This 
seems  impossible.  Moreover,  we  must  raise  a  question  whether 
a  copper  altar  is  conceivable  at  this  period.  All  the  altars  in 
Israel  were  of  stone  or  earth.  If  hewn  stone  was  an  unlawful 
innovation,  we  should  expect  metal  to  be  out  of  the  question. 

In  Semitic  religion,  we  are  able  to  show  that,  in  some  cases 
at  least,  the  altar  was  the  sacred  stone  to  which  the  place  was  dedi- 
cated.1 In  the  sanctuary  at  Jerusalem,  the  original  sacred  ob- 
ject was  the  native  stone  summit  of  the  hill,  and  this  occupied 
the  centre  of  the  court  before  the  House  of  Yahweh.  This  then 
constituted  the  original  altar  of  the  sanctuary.  Whether  the  ex- 
cavation in  the  rock,  which  reminds  us  of  the  pit  at  the  base  of 
Arabic  altars,  existed  so  early,  may  well  be  doubted.  But,  on  our 
hypothesis,  we  find  new  reason  for  Isaiah's  calling  Jerusalem 
Ariel — or  Altar-hearth.11 

Other  gods  than  Yahweh  were  worshipped  in  the  Temple. 
This  appears  from  many  indications.  The  frequent  efforts  made  by 
kings  of  Judah  to  purify  the  sanctuary,  that  is,  to  unify  the  wor- 
ship there,  show  how  tenaciously  the  other  gods  held  their  places. 
This  they  could  not  have  done  had  not  antiquity  been  on  their 
side.  Who  so  likely  as  Solomon  (the  lover  of  horses)  to  intro- 
duce the  horses  of  the  sun  into  the  sacred  precincts  ?  Ezekiel  com- 
plains that  the  abominations  of  the  nations  had  shrines  in  the 
courts  of  Yahweh ;  and  when  the  same  author  describes  men  wor- 
shipping images  engraved  on  the  walls,  we  think  of  the  cherubim, 
palms,  and  lions  of  Solomon's  time.  The  worship  of  foreign  gods 
by  Solomon  himself  is  a  plain  matter  of  history.  The  indulgence 
of  the  Hebrew  writers  for  their  hero  causes  them  to  shield  him 
by  throwing  the  blame  upon  his  wives.  These  are  said  to  have 
turned  his  heart  to  other  gods.  But  the  statement  is  in  itself  im- 
probable. Granting  that  the  wife  did  not  adopt  the  god  of  her 
husband,  and  that  therefore  the  foreign  princesses  should  have  their 
private  chapels,  this  was  no  reason  that  their  husband  should  join 
in  the  worship.  The  original  kernel  of  the  account  is  the  state- 
ment that  "Solomon  built  a  sanctuary  for  Chemosh,  the  god  of 

1  Cf.  W.  R.  Smith,  Religion  of  the  Semites,  p.  184  ff. 

1  Is.  29  ' ;  the  word  occurs  also  in  the  inscription  of  Mesha. 


SOLOMON  169 

Moab,  and  for  Moloch,  the  god  of  the  Ammonites."1  Undoubt- 
edly these  sanctuaries  were  in  Jerusalem,  though  the  later  author 
could  not  bear  to  think  this,  and  removed  them  to  the  Mount  of 
Olives. 

The  motive  for  naturalising  these  gods  in  Jerusalem  is  not  far 
to  seek.  Moab  and  Ammon  were  peoples  kindred  to  Israel. 
Their  territory  was  part  of  the  same  kingdom.  It  was  right,  in 
the  view  of  the  ruler,  that  these  peoples  should  be  conciliated 
and  that  their  divinities  should  be  recognised.  It  is  nothing 
surprising,  therefore,  to  find  the  tutelary  deities  of  all  Solomon's 
subjects  united  in  a  pantheon — the  king's  new  Temple  at  Jerusa- 
lem. Statecraft  would  suggest  such  a  step.  The  religion  of 
Yahweh  was  not  at  this  period  sufficiently  exclusive  to  protest 
against  it.  We  shall  be  attributing  later  motives  to  the  king  if 
we  suppose  him  to  be  a  universalist,  to  whom  all  religions  were 
equally  true,  and  who  found  the  one  God  in  all  the  objects  of 
worship.  Rather  must  we  suppose  him  a  believer  in  the  multi- 
tude of  gods,  each  of  whom  ought  to  be  conciliated  in  the  inter- 
est of  the  throne  and  the  nation. 

The  inclusiveness  of  Solomon's  worship  did  not  imply  that 
Yahweh  was  no  more  to  him  than  the  other  gods.  Doubtless  he 
felt  that  Yahweh  was  nearer  to  him  than  the  others,  and  that  He 
was  the  God  of  Israel  in  a  sense  in  which  the  others  could  never 
be.  This  was  indicated  by  the  fact  that  the  central  point  of  the 
Temple,  the  Most  Holy  Place,  was  appropriated  to  Him.  At  the 
dedication  the  king  recited  this  verse: 

Yahweh  has  set  the  sun  in  the  heavens, 
But  Himself  has  willed  to  dwell  in  darkness. 
I  have  therefore  built  Thee  a  house  to  dwell  in, 
A  home  for  Thee  for  eternity. 

It  is  pleasant  to  think  that  this  correctly  expresses  the  spirit  in 
which  the  building  of  the  Temple  was  undertaken.1 

1  I  Kings,  II7.  The  word  for  sanctuary  is  bama,  which  is  the  same  often 
translated  High-place.  The  words  of  the  Hebrew  text,  on  the  mount  east  of 
Jerusalem,  are  not  original,  as  we  see  from  Origen's  Hexapla,  which  puts 
them  under  the  asterisk. 

*  The  long  prayer  of  dedication  and  the  benedictions  in  I  Kings,  8,  are  so 
evidently  a  late  composition  that  we  must  leave  them  out  of  view.  The  verse 
given  above  seems  to  represent  the  earliest  tradition  of  the  dedication  speech. 
We  cannot  be  sure  that  even  this  goes  back  to  the  time  of  Solomon.  Fat 
correction  of  the  text,  consult  the  recent  commentaries. 


I/O  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

The  Temple  contained  many  things  at  which  later  Jewish  ex- 
clusiveness  would  have  shuddered.  Not  only  were  symbols  set 
up  which  were  later  called  idolatrous,  but  the  Temple  servants 
were  of  a  class  later  abhorred.  As  we  know  from  Ezekiel,  it 
was  the  custom  of  the  Kings  of  Judah  to  endow  the  sanctuary 
with  slaves  captured  in  war.  These  were  not  only  trained  to  do 
the  work  of  the  Temple,  but  we  have  reason  to  believe  that  some 
of  them  were  consecrated  to  the  obscene  rites  with  which  the 
Canaanitish  Baal  was  worshipped.  That  Solomon  was  the  first 
to  introduce  these  foreign  slaves  into  the  sanctuary  is  perhaps 
indicated  by  the  fact  that  after  the  Exile  a  class  of  Temple  ser- 
vants were  still  called  "  Sons  of  the  servants  of  Solomon."  1 

The  reign  of  Solomon  was  not  only  the  culmination  of  Israel's 
worldly  glory ;  it  was  also  the  beginning  of  its  decline — so  soon 
does  decay  follow  maturity.  The  various  parts  of  the  kingdom 
were  held  together  by  no  internal  bond.  The  rule  of  the  mon- 
arch enforced  a  unity  so  long  as  it  was  rigorous.  But  even  in 
Solomon's  lifetime  it  began  to  relax,  and  the  provinces  moved 
for  their  independence.  The  most  ancient  account  which  has 
come  down  to  us  speaks  of  the  revolt  of  Edom.  We  learn  that 
at  the  subjugation  of  this  country  by  David,  one  prince  of  the 
royal  house  (a  small  boy)  escaped  to  Egypt.  Here  he  was  wel- 
comed by  the  Pharaoh,  who  brought  him  up  with  his  own  chil- 
dren. At  the  death  of  David,  the  now  adult  prince  returned  to 
Edom  and  re-established  himself  on  the  throne.  How  extensive 
his  territory  was  we  cannot  say;  the  fact  that  Solomon  retained 
command  of  the  caravan  route  to  the  Gulf  of  Akaba  indicates 
that  Edom  did  not  regain  all  that  had  belonged  to  it  earlier. 
The  great  empires  of  the  East  have  continually  shown  the  phe- 
nomena which  here  appear  on  a  small  scale.1  The  readiness  of 

1  Neh.  7  "-*0,  Ezra,  2".  In  both  passages  they  are  classed  with  the  Ne- 
thinim,  who  are  known  to  be  descendants  of  Temple  slaves,  cf.  Ezra  8  *°. 
That  some  of  them  were  Canaanites  is  indicated  by  the  tradition  that  Joshua 
reduced  the  people  of  Gibeon  to  the  position  of  slaves  of  the  sanctuary, 
Josh.  9  **-". 

*  The  account  of  the  revolt  of  Edom,  I  Kings,  1 1  14-",  is  confusing,  be- 
cause  it  is  made  up  from  two  different  documents.  One  tradition  made 
Hadad  brought  up  by  Pharaoh's  wife,  the  other  made  him  marry  the 
queen's  sister.  There  are  indications  also  that  a  Midianite  prince  has  been 
mixed  up  with  this  Hadad.  Winckler  (Alttest.  Untersuch.,  pp  1-15)  first 
called  attention  to  the  literary  phenomena.  I  cannot  discover  the  necessity 
for  substituting  the  North  Arabian  Mucri  for  Egypt  in  this  passage. 


SOLOMON  I^I 

Egypt  to  foster  disintegration  in  Palestine  need  cause  no  re- 
mark. 

From  another  hand  we  have  the  story  of  Rezon.  This  hero  is 
described  as  a  bandit  captain  who  established  himself  in  the  re- 
gion of  Lebanon,  and  who  finally  got  possession  of  Damascus. 
Here  he  founded  a  kingdom,  which  later  became  a  standing 
menace  to  Israel.  He  belongs  in  this  connexion  only  if  he  took 
away  territory  belonging  to  Solomon.  It  is  probable  that  he 
did  take  away  such  territory,  for  David  made  tributaries  in  this 
region.  The  further  remark  that  Rezon  "was  Israel's  enemy 
all  the  days  of  Solomon,"  indicates  that  his  revolt  took  place 
early  in  the  reign.1 

More  serious  was  the  revolt  of  Jeroboam  ben  Nebat,  because  it 
affected  the  very  centre  of  the  kingdom.  It  was  suppressed, 
however,  during  Solomon's  life,  and  so  the  discussion  of  it  docs 
not  belong  in  this  chapter.  Solomon  is  said  to  have  reigned 
forty  years.  Tradition  magnified  his  wealth  and  his  wisdom,  and 
as  time  went  on  the  conviction  arose  that  if  he  had  been  a  wise 
man,  he  could  not  have  found  satisfaction  in  luxury  and  idolatry. 
So  he  became,  in  the  latest  Jewish  literature,  a  type  of  the  peni- 
tent rou6  who  has  tried  all  the  resources  of  earth,  only  to  find 
them  impotent  to  give  happiness.  Whether  the  real  Solomon 
ever  had  such  an  experience  is  impossible  to  say.  All  that  the 
record  pictures  is  an  oriental  despot,  luxurious  and  oppressive, 
but  possibly  good-natured  and  genial  in  personal  intercourse. 
Of  statesmanship,  in  our  sense  of  the  word,  he  had  not  the 
faintest  glimmer.  His  religion  was  of  the  type  held  by  his  con- 
temporaries. Nothing  can  be  attributed  to  him  that  really  ad- 
vanced Israel  in  its  world  mission. 

Concerning  the  social  condition  of  the  people  during  the 
reigns  of  David  and  Solomon,  we  know  little.  On  the  side  of 
religion,  we  know  that  when  the  Israelites  entered  Canaan  they 
brought  their  God  Yahweh  with  them.  But  they  found  a  fully 
developed  religion  already  in  possession  of  the  country.  Every- 
where there  were  sanctuaries  to  the  local  Baal.  This  god  was 
worshipped  as  the  god  of  fruitfulness,  and  the  harvests  which 
made  the  peasant's  wealth  were  his  gift.  We  can  hardly  suppose 

•The  account,  I  Kings,  M  **"**,  has  suffered  in  transmission.  The  editor 
was  apparently  anxious  to  pass  as  lightly  as  possible  over  these  unpleasant 
incidents. 


172  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

the  nomads  to  naturalise  their  Yahweh  at  once  as  lord  of  the 
land.  It  would  be  their  thought  that  the  god  of  the  cultivated 
land  would  know  better  than  the  god  of  the  desert  how  to  make 
the  harvests  grow.  We  can  understand,  if  we  do  not  excuse,  the 
continual  tendency  of  the  Israelites  to  seek  the  favour  of  Baal — a 
tendency  of  which  the  prophetic  writers  complain  without  ceasing. 

We  may  go  further.  We  have  found  abundant  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  the  conquest  of  Canaan  was  really  a  gradual  amalgama- 
tion of  Israelites  and  Canaanites.  The  two  people  lived  side  by 
side  (in  many  communities)  on  friendly  terms.  The  alliances  by 
which  they  secured  mutual  rights  were  entered  into  by  recogni- 
tion of  each  other's  divinities.  Baal  and  Yahweh  were  respected, 
and  in  some  cases  worshipped,  by  both  parties.  Baal  admitted 
Yahweh  to  his  sanctuaries — nay,  the  process  went  so  far  that  Baal 
and  Yahweh  were  identified.  The  meaning  of  Baal  (Lord}  fa- 
cilitated the  identification.  It  was  easy  to  say  that  Yahweh  was 
the  Baal  of  Israel.  Names  borne  by  sons  in  the  family  of  Saul, 
and  in  the  family  of  David  (Ish&aa/,  BaaiyaA£)  show  how  deep- 
rooted  was  the  idea.1  On  the  other  hand  we  find  the  Canaanites 
adopting  Yahweh.  Gibeon,  as  we  know,  was  an  ancient  Ca- 
naanitish  city.  The  people  were  reckoned  Canaanites  in  the  time 
of  David.  Yet  the  sanctuary  of  their  city  was  the  sanctuary  of 
Yahweh,  for  it  was  before  Yahweh  that  they  impaled  the  sons 
of  Saul.  More  striking  still,  it  was  this  Canaanitish  sanctuary 
which  Solomon  chose  out  of  all  the  high  places  of  the  land,  when 
he  wanted  to  honour  the  God  of  Israel.2 

What  had  taken  place  here,  had  taken  place  all  over  the  land. 
Yahweh  was  no  longer  the  God  of  the  desert,  or  of  Horeb ; s  He 
had  become  the  God  of  the  land,  and  David  complained  that  in 
exile  from  Canaan  he  was  banished  from  the  presence  of  Yah- 
weh.4 The  ancient  sanctuaries  of  Canaan  were  in  a  position  to 
exercise  a  strong  fascination  on  immigrant  Israel.  They  had  an- 

1  Perhaps  the  most  significant  indication  is  the  name  Baaliah  (l  Chr.  12  8) 
which  is  given  as  the  name  of  one  of  David's  captains  and  which  means 
Yahweh-is-Baal.  The  place-names  Baal-Judah  and  Baal-Perazim  (the  latter 
given  by  David)  are  also  significant  of  the  amalgamation. 

*Cf.  what  was  said  above  (p.  163)  about  the  adoption  of  old  sanctuaries 
in  a  new  religion. 

1  Although  Horeb  no  doubt  retained  its  ancient  sanctity.  This  we  see 
from  the  story  of  Elijah. 

« I  Sam.  26  ". 


SOLOMON  173 

tiquity  in  their  favour;  their  ritual  was  ornate  and  sensuous; 
they  were  the  centres  of  civilisation,  of  trade,  and  of  dissipation. 
That  they  should  maintain  their  influence  is  what  we  might  ex- 
pect. Syncretism  resulted,  even  in  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem. 

Socially  and  politically,  the  old  tribal  organisation  was  still 
strong.  The  people  had  become  cultivators,  but  the  institution* 
of  the  desert  survived.  In  imposing  the  machinery  of  taxation, 
the  king  had  no  thought  of  changing  the  social  order.  The 
new  pashas  and  the  old  sheikhs  lived  side  by  side.  The  old 
customary  law  was  still  administered  in  the  gates.  Although  the 
king  was  chief  justice,  and  an  appeal  to  him  was  open  to  any 
subject,  there  seems  to  have  been  no  attempt  to  appoint  subordi- 
nate judges  by  his  authority.  Had  Solomon  been  the  originator 
of  improvements  in  the  legal  system,  tradition  would  almost  cer- 
tainly have  known  something  of  it.  A  recently  discovered  mon- 
ument of  early  Babylonian  jurisprudence,  shows  us  what  might 
reasonably  have  been  expected  of  a  Hebrew  king  who  was  noted 
for  his  wisdom.  This  monument  is  the  code  of  Hammurabi, 
king  of  Babylon.1  The  monarch  who  promulgates  it  regards 
himself  as  commissioned  by  the  gods  "  to  establish  justice  in  the 
land,  to  destroy  the  wicked  in  order  that  the  powerful  may  not  in- 
jure the  weak,"  and  a  relief  sculptured  on  the  pillar  possibly  rep- 
resents him  receiving  his  laws  from  the  sun-god.  No  doubt  Baby- 
lonian and  Hebrew  ideas  are  alike,  in  that  Yahweh  also  was  the 
guardian  of  right  and  the  source  of  legislation  ;  the  example  of 
Moses  shows  as  much.  Solomon  may  well  have  looked  upon  him- 
self as  divinely  commissioned  to  administer  justice.  Tradition 
makes  him  pray  for  wisdom  and  gives  a  legal  decision  of  his  as  an 
example  of  the  wisdom  intended.  But  Solomon  nowhere  saw  the 
royal  opportunity  to  codify  and  publish  the  law  of  the  land  for 
the  guidance  of  his  subjects  or  of  his  officials.  In  this  he  was 
behind  his  Babylonian  predecessor. 

This  example  is  instructive  as  showing  how  little  Babylonian 
influence  was  found  in  Palestine.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  at 
one  time  this  influence  had  been  paramount  there.  But  that  time 

1  A  German  translation  is  published  by  Winckler,  Die  Gesette  Hammur- 
abi's (1902),  and  an  English  translation  of  Winckler's  German  is  given  in  the 
New  York  Independent  for  January  8,  15,  and  22,  1903.  Hammurabi'* 
reign  is  dated  about  2000  B.C.  ;  Solomon's  coronation  may  be  placed  approx- 
imately at  970  B.C. 


174  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

was  long  past.  The  Israelite  invasion  had  done  away  with  Baby- 
lonian institutions.  The  people  who  came  in  from  the  desert 
brought  their  own  laws — or  rather  lack  of  laws — with  them. 
Now,  no  doubt,  in  a  society  comparatively  settled,  they  were  de- 
veloping a  system  of  common  law.  The  earliest  Hebrew  code 
which  has  come  down  to  us l  was  published  at  a  date  consider- 
ably later  than  the  time  of  Solomon.  But  it  embodies  usage 
which  is  as  old  as  Solomon  or  older,  and  we  may  use  it  to  throw 
light  upon  the  social  conditions  of  the  time.  Its  simplicity  when 
compared  with  the  code  of  Hammurabi  confirms  its  indepen- 
dence. The  points  of  resemblance,  some  of  which  are  striking, 
are  features  common  to  oriental  society. 

The  chief  interest  of  the  legislator  was  in  the  rights  of  property. 
The  most  important  class  of  property  was  slaves,  if  we  may  judge 
from  its  heading  the  list.  A  Hebrew  might  be  sold  into  sla- 
very for  debt.  The  code  provides  in  such  case  that  he  shall 
not  be  held  more  than  six  years  without  his  own  consent.  This, 
however,  seems  not  to  have  been  recognised  as  binding  law  at 
any  time.  The  example  shows  that  this  code,  in  some  cases,  ex- 
pressed the  ideal  of  the  writer,  rather  than  actual  practice.  It  is 
interesting  to  notice  that  the  author  assumes  that  there  will  be 
household  gods  in  each  dwelling — reminding  us  of  the  teraphim 
in  David's  house. 

A  Hebrew  girl  (it  is  assumed)  is  likely  to  be  sold  into  concu- 
binage, which  is,  in  fact,  the  recognised  form  of  marriage.  In 
such  a  case,  sale  to  another  master  will  be  a  hardship,  and  the  right 
of  the  master  is  limited  so  that  he  must  allow  her  own  family  to 
redeem  her.  Polygamy  is  recognised,  care  being  taken  only  that 
the  different  wives  shall  be  treated  alike.  The  one  discriminated 
against  may  claim  her  freedom. 

Murder  is  punished  according  to  the  custom  of  blood-revenge. 
Unintentional  killing  is  now  differentiated  from  murder,  how- 
ever, in  so  far  that  the  altar  of  Yahweh  provides  an  asylum  for  the 
manslayer  if  the  killing  be  unintentional.  Injury  to  a  slave,  in- 
flicted by  a  master,  was  injury  to  a  man's  own  property,  and 
was  not  punishable  unless  death  ensued  immediately.  Ordinary 
cases  of  injury  by  assault  were  punishable  by  talio — an  eye  for  an 

JThe  so-called  Book  of  the  Covenant,  Ex.  20"— 23  M.  Cf.  Baentsch,  Dat 
Bundesbuch  (1892),  and  his  commentary  on  Exodus,  p.  185  ff.;  also  Briggs, 
Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuih  (1897),  pp.  211-232  and  242-255. 


SOLOMON  175 

eye,  a  tooth  for  a  tooth,  wound  for  wound — doubtless  the  penalty 
was  inflicted  by  the  injured  person  or  his  next  of  kin.  A  large 
amount  of  attention  is  given  to  injury  of  cattle  or  by  cattle,  to 
damage  of  crops,  to  theft,  and  to  loss  of  articles  loaned  or  in  safe 
keeping.  Seduction  of  a  virgin  is  treated  as  a  damage  to  property. 

If,  as  seems  probable,  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  has  preserved 
to  us  the  first  endeavour  to  write  down  some  of  the  examples 
of  case  law,1  its  importance  for  literature  is  not  inferior  to  its 
importance  in  legal  development.  The  reign  of  Solomon  would 
naturally  foster  literature.  The  new-felt  unity  of  Israel  would 
lead  to  a  collection  of  Israel's  traditions.  Legends,  long  cir- 
culated orally,  would  now  be  put  in  written  form.  The  poetic 
monuments  of  past  achievements  would  be  zealously  sought.  It 
is  probable  that  considerable  portions  of  the  literature  thus  put 
into  shape  have  come  down  to  us  imbedded  in  the  works  of  later 
writers. 

Among  the  productions  of  the  period  we  may,  with  some  con- 
fidence, put  the  so-called  Blessing  of  Jacob.*  A  poet  here  puts 

1  The  oldest  portions  of  the  book  probably  contain  notes  of  actual  cases, 
written  down,  not  as  authoritative  legislation,  but  for  information  on  prec- 
edents. By  far  the  greater  part  of  the  laws  in  this  code  are  in  the  form  of 
judgments  (cf.  Briggs,  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch,  p.  252  ff. )  which 
state  a  case  hypothetically  and  then  give  the  decision,  as  :  "  If  a  man  smite 
another  so  that  he  die,  he  shall  be  put  to  death."  It  is  noticeable  that  this 
is  the  form  of  the  laws  of  Hammurabi.  It  seems  probable  also  that  the 
two  codes  were  alike  in  arranging  the  laws  in  groups  of  five,  though  this  is 
not  rigorously  carried  through  in  either  one.  Specific  points  of  resemblance 
are  the  following : 

Thou  shah  not  suffer  a  maker  of  spells  to  live  (Ex.  22  "*) :  If  one  cast  a 
spell  upon  a  man  ...  he  shall  be  put  to  death  (Hammurabi  l). 

If  a  man  steal  an  ox  or  a  sheep  ...  he  shall  restore  five  oxen  for  an 
ox  and  four  sheep  for  a  sheep  (Ex.  22  ')  :  If  a  man  steal  an  ox  or  a  sheep  or 
an  ass  or  a  swine  belonging  to  a  god  or  to  the  king,  he  shall  restore  thirty 
fold  ;  if  it  belong  to  a  freeman  he  shall  restore  ten  fold  (Ham.  8). 

He  that  steal t-th  a  man  .  .  .  shall  be  put  to  death  (Ex.  2 1  u)  :  If  one 
steal  the  minor  son  of  another,  he  shall  be  put  to  death  (Ham.  14). 

If  a  thief  be  found  breaking  in  and  be  smitten  that  he  die,  no  blood  shall 
be  shed  for  him  (unless  the  sun  be  risen,  Ex.  22  Tf) :  If  one  breaks  into  a 
house  he  shall  be  slain  before  the  breach  and  buried  there  (Ham.  21). 

On  trespass  of  cattle,  cf.  Ex.  22*  and  Ham.  57  f.  On  goods  entrusted  to 
another  for  safe  keeping,  cf.  Ex.  22  T-U  and  Ham.  112.  The  talio  is  en- 
forced by  Ham.  196-201.  The  striking  of  a  father  is  punished  with  death 
in  both  codes. 

1  Testament  of  Jacob  would  be  a  better  name.     It  is  found  in  Gen.  49. 


OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

into  the  mouth  of  Israel,  the  eponym  of  the  nation,  verses  char- 
acterising the  different  tribes.  Reuben  has  already  lost  his  pre- 
eminence. Simeon  and  Levi  have  been  punished  for  their  inhu- 
manity. But  Judah  has  the  suzerainty  over  his  brothers.  Dan 
and  Gad  live  on  the  frontiers,  where  their  valour  defends  their 
country  from  the  raiders.  Joseph  is  second  only  to  Judah  in  the 
blessings  which  are  allotted  to  him.  With  such  appeals  to  the 
clans  we  may  suppose  the  poet  to  rouse  their  emulation  and  stim- 
ulate their  pride. 

Other  portions  of  the  poetic  anthologies  cannot  be  pointed  out 
with  certainty.  We  may  assume,  however,  with  some  probabil- 
ity, that  the  oldest  sections  of  our  historical  books  were  written 
down  in  this  period.  Interest  in  the  dynasty  of  David  would 
make  the  life  of  that  king  one  of  the  first  subjects  to  be  treated. 
We  may  also  suppose  that  it  now  became  the  fashion  at  the  more 
celebrated  sanctuaries  to  have  the  traditions  of  the  Patriarchs  put 
into  written  form.  Solomon's  own  interest  in  literature  may 
have  been  genuine ;  in  any  case  his  reign  was  of  permanent  im- 
portance in  the  development  of  Israel,  more  from  the  rtimulus  it 
gave  to  literature  than  for  its  wealth  or  commerce. 


CHAPTER  X 

FROM   JEROBOAM   TO   JEHU 

THE  attempt  of  an  ambitious  satrap  to  make  himself  an  inde- 
pendent monarch  is  a  constantly  recurring  phenomenon  in 
oriental  history.  Such  attempts  in  the  outlying  districts  of  Solo- 
mon's kingdom  we  have  already  chronicled.  Another  in  the 
centre  of  the  kingdom  need  cause  no  surprise  when  we  remember 
the  fierce  and  haughty  temper  of  Ephraim.  Such  an  attempt  was 
made  during  Solomon's  life,  though  suppressed  for  the  time  be- 
ing. It  was  headed  by  Jeroboam  ben  Nebat,  a  man  of  obscure 
origin,  but  of  energetic  character.  According  to  our  sources, 
he  attracted  the  attention  of  Solomon,  who  promoted  him  to 
the  position  of  overseer  of  the  forced  labour  in  the  country  of 
Ephraim.  According  to  an  intimation  in  the  Greek  version,1  he 
fortified  his  native  place  Zereda,  and  enlisted  chariots  in  his  ser- 
vice. This  almost  ostentatious  indication  of  an  intention  to  re- 
volt aroused  the  vigilance  of  Solomon,  and  Jeroboam  was  obliged 
to  flee  to  Egypt.  He  found  an  asylum  with  Shishak  (Sheshonk) 
a  king  not  friendly  to  Solomon.1  Here  he  watched  the  course 
of  events,  and  apparently  kept  in  communication  with  the  Sheikhs 
of  Ephraim.  Change  of  the  throne  is  usually  the  signal  for  civil 
disorders  in  the  East,  and  so  it  proved  in  this  case.  As  soon  as 
Solomon's  death  was  announced,  Jeroboam  returned  to  his  native 
town,  which  was  within  easy  reach  of  Shechem,  the  capital  of 
Ephraim. 

We  remember  Shechem  as  the  city  in  which  Abimelech  had 
once  set  up  his  kingdom.  The  fact  that  Rehoboam,  who  succeeded 
to  Solomon's  throne  in  Judah  without  opposition,  found  it  neces- 
sary to  come  hither  for  recognition  shows  how  much  of  the  old 

1  The  passage  partly  duplicates  the  Hebrew  text,  bat  is  in  part  original.  It 
is  printed  by  Swete  (Old  Testament  in  Greek),  as  3  Kings,  I2*4*-',  in  La- 
garde's  edition  as  3  Kings,  1 2  **•**. 

•The  statement  that  Shishak  gave  him  his  daughter  in  marriage  seems  to 
hare  come  in  by  confusion  with  the  story  of  Hadad. 

•77 


178  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

tribal  independence  remained.  Solomon  had  been  fortunate  in 
that  he  had  been  crowned  during  his  father's  lifetime,  when  the  old 
king's  prestige  was  sufficient  to  secure  the  allegiance  of  all  divi- 
sions of  the  kingdom.  The  Sheikhs  of  Ephraim  did  not  conceive 
that  they  had  sworn  loyalty  to  the  dynasty  of  David  for  all  time. 
The  temper  of  the  tribes  was  different  from  what  it  had  been 
forty  years  earlier.  They  had  experienced  the  rigour  of  despot- 
ism, and  the  Sheikhs  had  no  hesitation  in  demanding  relief: 
"  Thy  father  made  our  yoke  heavy;  lighten  thou  the  hard  ser- 
vice of  thy  father  and  his  heavy  yoke,  and  we  will  serve  thee." 
Whether  specific  demands  were  made — exemption  from  forced 
labour  or  a  limitation  of  the  amount — cannot  now  be  made  out. 
The  young  king  took  time  to  consider,  and  to  consult  with 
his  advisers.  The  older  men  counselled  moderation — it  was 
necessary  to  yield  only  this  once  in  order  to  get  the  throne 
thoroughly  established ;  afterward  he  would  be  able  to  do  what 
he  pleased.  But  the  younger  courtiers,  brought  up  to  look  upon 
the  common  people  as  the  born  slaves  of  the  monarch,  advised  no 
concessions.  These,  the  playmates  and  boon  companions  of  the 
prince,  were  the  ones  who  had  his  ear.  In  accordance  with  their 
advice  he  responded  to  the  deputation  when  they  came  for  their 
answer:  "My  little  finger  is  thicker  than  my  father's  loins." 
The  single  sentence l  left  no  doubt  concerning  the  speaker's  es- 
timate of  his  own  powers,  or  concerning  his  purpose  to  exercise 
those  powers  to  the  full. 

Though  Jeroboam  had  returned  from  Egypt  he  does  not  seem 
to  have  been  present  at  these  negotiations.  Probably  he  thought 
it  would  be  better  to  be  called  by  the  people  than  to  put  himself 
forward  as  a  leader.  To  start  the  revolt  was  easy.  The  cry  was 
raised  : 

"  What  part  have  we  in  David, 

Or  portion  in  the  son  of  Jesse  ? 

To  thy  tents,  O  Israel ! 

Now  look  to  thy  house,  David  !  " 

It  was  the  old  war-cry  kept  in  memory  since  the  time  of  Sheba, 
the  Bichrite.     When  it  had  aroused  the  people  to  arms,  then 

1  It  was  unnecessary  to  add  an  explanation  in  the  specific  threat  to  make 
their  yoke  heavy  and  to  chastise  them  with  scorpions.  This  would  have 
been  insulting,  and  we  may  charitably  suppose  that  the  narrator  has  ex- 
panded the  earliest  account. 


FROM   JEROBOAM    TO  JEHU  179 

the  need  of  a  leader  was  felt,  and  Jeroboam  was  pointed  out  as 
the  man  for  the  hour.  He  was  summoned  from  Zereda  and  took 
his  place  at  the  head  of  the  movement.1 

No  serious  opposition  could  be  offered  by  Rehoboam.  He 
had  no  adequate  armed  force  with  him.  In  his  infatuation  he 
supposed  that  Adoniram,  the  chief  overseer  of  the  forced  labour, 
would  overawe  the  crowd.  But  the  task-master  only  infuriated 
the  people,  and  they  stoned  him  to  death,  and  the  king  was 
obliged  to  flee  the  city  to  avoid  a  similar  fate.  According  to 
the  narrative  in  our  hands  he  called  out  the  militia  of  Judah  and 
would  have  attempted  to  regain  his  power  had  not  a  prophet  in- 
terfered and  warned  him  to  desist.  It  is  more  probable  that  he 
found  enough  to  do  to  keep  the  country  immediately  about  Jeru- 
salem. Judah  indeed  was  loyal,  but  Benjamin  had  never  been 
well  affected  toward  the  house  of  David,  and  it  would  now  be 
strongly  drawn  toward  the  kindred  tribe  of  Ephraim.1  Hence 
we  must  suppose  Rehoboam's  work  cut  out  for  him  near  at  hand. 
In  fact  the  most  ancient  sources  count  the  tribe  of  Judah  alone  as 
making  up  the  kingdom  of  Rehoboam.  Only  such  parts  of  Benja- 
min as  could  be  overawed  from  Jerusalem  were  kept  in  his  power. 

The  judgment  of  posterity  on  Jeroboam  ben  Nebat  has  been 
curiously  influenced  by  religious  prepossession.  When  our  histor- 
ical books  received  their  present  form,  Judah  alone  was  regarded 
as  the  people  of  Yahweh,  the  northern  kingdom  having  perished. 
In  seeking  to  interpret  the  ways  of  God,  the  author  took  the  view 
that  the  revolt  of  Jeroboam  was  (although  of  divine  appointment) 
rebellion  against  the  legitimate  rulers  of  Israel.  It  was  also  apos- 
tasy from  the  true  religion,  for  the  later  time  viewed  the  Temple 
at  Jerusalem  as  the  only  authorised  sanctuary  of  Israel's  God. 
Our  books  of  Kings  proceed  at  once  to  pronounce  judgment  upon 
Jeroboam  from  this  later  point  of  view,  and  they  repeat  the 

1  I  Kings,  12  *"*° — one  of  the  most  vivid  passages  in  the  Old  Testament. 

*  We  must  recognise  that  the  narrative  from  this  point  on  shows  a  strong 
religious  bias.  The  latest  author  has  no  sympathy  with  the  northern  king- 
dom. The  prophet  who  is  made  to  forbid  Rehoboam's  campaign  against 
Israel  after  he  has  called  out  the  fighting  men  of  Judah,  is  only  one  of  sev- 
eral such  anonymous  figures  introduced  simply  to  give  a  moral  lesson.  The 
historicity  of  I  Kings,  12  n,  is  defended  by  some  authors  who  reject  the  verses 
that  follow.  But  the  whole  seems  to  be  of  a  piece,  and  there  is  nothing  in 
the  language  to  make  us  divide  the  passage.  That  the  relations  of  the  two 
kingdoms  would  be  strained  is  probable,  cf.  I  Kings,  14  M. 


l8o  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

judgment  on  his  successors,  who  "  departed  not  from  his  ways." 
Allowance  must  be  made  for  this  bias  in  reading  the  account. 
At  the  time  of  the  revolt  there  was  no  consciousness  of  anti-relig- 
ious motive  on  the  part  of  the  northern  tribes,  and  probably  no 
accusation  of  apostasy  was  made  by  Judah.  We  cannot  help 
thinking  that  the  division  was  regrettable,  because  it  weakened 
the  people.  But  the  coherence  of  the  tribes  had  never  been  very 
strong;  Judah  and  Ephraim  had  always  lived  in  jealousy  of  each 
other ;  the  tyranny  of  Solomon  had  alienated  whatever  affection 
David  had  inspired.  Only  a  succession  of  wise  and  strong  rulers 
could  have  welded  the  independent  clans  that  bore  the  name  of 
Israel  into  a  homogeneous  people.  Jeroboam  deserves  a  place 
among  those  patriots  who  have  roused  a  suffering  people  to  throw 
off  the  yoke  of  oppression.  What  he  did  was  morally  certain  to 
be  done  sooner  or  later. 

If  the  majority  should  rule,  Jeroboam's  right  was  better  than 
the  right  of  Rehoboam.  By  far  the  most  important  part  of  the 
nation  was  Jeroboam's.  He  had  the  larger  territory,  the  more 
fertile  provinces,  the  more  numerous  subjects,  and  greater  re- 
sources. The  fertility  of  Ephraim  was  proverbial,  while  large 
parts  of  Judah  were  fitted  only  for  pasture.  It  was  not  without 
right,  therefore,  that  the  northern  kingdom  called  itself  Israel. 
That  its  boundaries  extended  across  the  Jordan  is  indicated  by 
the  fact  that  Jeroboam  fortified  Penuel.  The  province  of  Moab, 
as  we  learn  later,  fell  to  Israel  instead  of  Judah — as  David's  con- 
quest it  would  seem  to  belong  to  the  latter. 

Of  Jeroboam's  reign  we  know  little.  He  built  a  palace  at 
Shechem,  which  had  ancient  claims  to  be  considered  the  capital. 
His  interest  in  religion  was  manifested  by  his  care  for  the  sanctu- 
aries in  his  domain.  Of  these  the  most  celebrated  were  Bethel 
and  Dan.  The  former  traced  its  sacred  character  to  the  Patriarch 
Jacob,  who  discovered  there  the  presence  of  Yahweh,  as  well  as  the 
mysterious  ladder  which  led  thence  to  heaven.  It  was  he,  also, 
who  erected  the  sacred  pillar  and  inaugurated  the  cultus  by  pour- 
ing oil  upon  it.  The  stories  mean,  of  course,  that  the  place  was  a 
sanctuary  before  historic  times,  and  this  suggests  that  it  was  one 
of  those  taken  over  from  the  Canaanites.  Dan  also  had  a  cele- 
brated house  of  God,  which  dated  from  the  Israelite  occupation 
of  the  city,  and  whose  priests  traced  their  ancestry  to  Moses. 
Here  there  was  an  image  of  Yahweh,  the  title  to  which  was  the 


FROM   JEROBOAM   TO  JEHU  l8l 

right  of  the  strongest,  now  confirmed  by  some  centuries  of  pos- 
session. At  Bethel  the  object  of  worship  was  the  sacred  stone. 

Jeroboam's  zeal  for  religion  was  manifested  in  that  he  adorned 
each  of  these  sanctuaries  with  a  golden  bull.  Under  this  form 
he  supposed  that  the  God  of  Isaael  might  be  worshipped,  for  he 
expressly  declared  in  setting  them  up  that  this  was  the  God 
which  brought  Israel  out  of  Egypt.  The  writer  who  gives  us  this 
account  regards  the  whole  transaction  with  disapproval,1  and  he 
assigns  a  political  motive  to  the  king — the  fear  that  the  people,  by 
going  to  Jerusalem  to  worship,  will  be  weaned  away  from  him  and 
turn  back  to  Rehoboam.  But  this  is  plainly  a  later  conception. 
There  was  no  reason  why  the  people  should  go  to  the  temple  to 
worship,  for  the  land  was  full  of  sanctuaries.  Even  in  Judah  the 
Temple  was  not  regarded  as  the  only  place  of  worship,  for,  as  we 
know,  the  people  were  zealous  in  visiting  the  many  high  places 
there.  No  danger  arose,  or  was  likely  to  arise,  to  the  throne  of 
Jeroboam  from  the  Temple. 

We  are  driven  to  suppose,  therefore,  that  Jeroboam  was  moved 
by  zeal  for  the  God  of  Israel.  He  was  a  worshipper  of  Yahweh, 
as  is  shown  by  his  giving  his  son  the  name  Abijah.*  It  is  not 
unreasonable  to  suppose,  further,  that  he  was  led  to  make  the 
golden  bulls  by  the  established  symbolism  of  the  times.  Whether 
the  symbolism  was  the  result  of  the  adoption  of  Baal  by  Israel 
cannot  clearly  be  made  out.  There  are  distinct  traces  of  animal 
worship  among  the  Hebrews  in  the  earlier  time,  and  among  the 
animals  none  was  more  important  to  them  than  the  bull.  Before 
the  introduction  of  the  camel,  neat  cattle  were  the  beasts  of  bur- 
den of  the  nomads.  There  is  nothing  improbable,  therefore,  in 
the  supposition  that  in  the  desert  Israel  had  worshipped  Yahweh 
under  the  form  of  a  bull.1 

1  I  Kings.  12  **-ss.  The  passage  is  doubtless  late,  but  it  seems  to  be  based 
on  fact.  The  golden  bulls  are  called  calves  by  the  Hebrew  author  because  of 
their  small  size.  It  seems  to  be  well  established  that  Baal  was  worshipped 
under  the  form  of  a  bull. 

1  Yah-weh'is -father  is  the  meaning  of  the  name. 

1  The  story  of  the  golden  calf  made  by  Aaron  is  too  late  to  be  taken  as  evi- 
dence, but  a  certain  amount  of  weight  may  be  allowed  it  in  connexion  with 
what  has  already  been  adduced,  and  it  certainly  assumes  that  so  venerable 
a  man  as  Aaron  was  capable  of  worshipping  Yahweh  under  such  an  image. 
In  one  ancient  passage  (Gen.  49  M)  Yahweh  seems  to  to  be  called  the  Bull 
jJacob. 


182  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

Religious  conservatism  accounts,  therefore,  for  the  misunder- 
stood act  of  Jeroboam.  And  the  other  deeds  for  which  he  is 
blamed  by  the  Biblical  writer  must  be  judged  in  the  same  way. 
In  appointing  priests  from  the  common  people  he  was  only  fol- 
lowing the  example  of  David  and  Solomon.  In  celebrating  a 
festival  a  month  later  than  it  was  observed  in  Judah,  he  was 
probably  conforming  to  the  established  custom  of  the  northern 
tribes. 

That  in  matters  of  religion  Judah  was  not  different  from  Israel 
is  testified  by  the  writer  who  is  so  ready  to  blame  Jeroboam. 
He  enumerates  the  ''abominations"  that  were  found  in  Judah, 
among  which  are  the  high  places,  the  sacred  stones,  the  sacred 
poles,  and  the  religious  prostitutes.  "  They  did  the  like  of  all 
the  abominations  of  the  nations  which  Yahweh  drove  out  before 
the  sons  of  Israel."  l  We  need  no  more  explicit  evidence  of  the 
syncretism  of  the  period. 

The  author  of  the  Book  of  Kings,  on  whom  we  must  depend 
for  our  history,  had  a  difficult  task  before  him  in  following  a 
double  line  of  narrative,  and  he  has  not  always  succeeded  in 
making  his  account  entirely  clear.  His  plan  for  this  period  is  as 
follows :  First  he  gives  an  account  of  Jeroboam,  of  whom  he  has 
almost  nothing  to  tell.  He  then  takes  in  order  the  three  Judaic 
kings  whose  reigns  were  wholly  or  partly  contemporaneous  with 
that  of  Jeroboam.  After  carrying  the  last  of  these  to  its  con- 
clusion, he  returns  to  the  northern  kingdom.  Here  he  gives  a 
continuous  account  down  to  the  death  of  Ahab.  For  the  king- 
dom of  Judah  he  finds  it  necessary  to  give  only  a  brief  account 
of  Jehoshaphat,  and  then  resumes  the  other  thread  with  the  son 
of  Ahab.  This  king  was  succeeded  by  his  brother,  within  whose 
reign  the  son  and  grandson  of  Jehoshaphat  came  to  the  throne. 
The  revolt  of  Jehu  forms  a  convenient  mark  of  division  because 
it  concerns  both  kingdoms — Jehu  slew  both  the  reigning  mon- 
archs,  thus  making  Athaliah's  accession  in  Judah  synchronous 
with  his  own  in  Israel. 

In  this  period,  which  we  may  estimate  at  about  ninety  years, 

1  I  Kings,  14  M  f.  The  sacred  pillars  (ma((tboth}  are  stones  erected  at  the 
sanctuary,  like  the  one  set  up  at  Bethel  by  Jacob.  The  sacred  poles  (asherim) 
are  stakes,  also  erected  near  the  altar.  Discussion  of  the  significance  of  both 
will  be  found  in  the  books  on  Old  Testament  archaeology.  The  mafftba  is 
paralleled  in  old  Arabic  religion. 


FROM  JEROBOAM   TO  JEHU  183 

the  most  noticeable  thing  is  the  frequent  change  of  dynasty  in 
the  northern  kingdom.  Judah  seems  to  have  settled  on  the  house 
of  David  as  its  lawful  rulers,  but  the  principle  of  legitimacy 
scarcely  obtained  a  foothold  in  Ephraim.  Jeroboam,  no  doubt, 
had  just  cause  against  Solomon.  But  his  success  stimulated 
others  to  follow  his  example  whether  they  had  just  cause  or  not. 
His  own  line  lasted  only  through  his  son  Nadab.  This  king  was 
allowed  to  occupy  the  throne  but  two  years  when  his  general, 
Baasha  by  name,  slew  him  and  exterminated  the  family.  When 
the  rebellion  broke  out,  the  army  was  besieging  Gibbethon,  a 
Philistine  fortress.1  As  Baasha  is  called  a  man  of  Naphtali,  it 
may  be  that  tribal  jealousies  were  in  play.  But  the  revolt  of  a 
military  leader  against  his  sovereign  is  so  constant  a  phenomenon 
in  some  stages  of  society,  that  speculation  on  special  motives 
should  be  indulged  with  caution.  Baasha  seems  to  have  been  a 
man  of  ability,  for  he  pushed  his  frontier  down  to  Ramah,  so 
that  Asa,  King  of  Judah,  was  obliged  to  call  in  foreign  help. 
The  incident  will  occupy  us  later.  Of  Baasha  we  know  nothing 
further.  His  son  seems  to  have  been  a  weakling  who  occupied 
himself  with  the  pleasures  of  the  table  in  which  the  wine-cup  had 
a  prominent  place.  While  at  a  carouse  in  the  house  of  his 
major  domo  he  was  assassinated  by  one  of  his  generals,  Zimri 
by  name,  commander  of  half  the  chariot  force.1  The  usual  ex- 
termination of  the  family  of  the  murdered  king  followed.  So 
cold-blooded  was  the  deed,  that  the  name  of  Zimri  became  pro- 
verbial for  an  assassin.*  The  crime  did  not  long  benefit  the  per- 
petrator. The  greater  part  of  the  army  was  in  the  field,  again 
engaged  before  Gibbethon.  Seeing  that  they  had  the  power  in 
their  hands,  they  proclaimed  their  general,  Omri,  king,  and 
marched  against  the  royal  residence.  The  case  was  seen  by 
Zimri  to  be  hopeless,  and  he  burned  the  palace  over  his  own 
head,  and  so  perished  after  scarcely  a  taste  of  power.* 

1  I  Kings,  15";  the  site  is  not  yet  identified. 

1  I  Kings,  i6*-10.  The  king's  name  was  Elah,  and  his  residence  was  at 
Tirzah,  a  place  which  we  know  to  have  been  celebrated  for  the  beauty  of 
its  situation,  but  which  has  not  been  certainly  identified. 

*  So  we  seem  to  be  justified  in  concluding  from  the  language  of  Jezebel, 
2  Kings,  9". 

*The  historian  assigns  him  only  seven  days,  but  probably  counts  only  to 
the  beginning  of  the  siege.  It  is  curious  to  see  how  the  fixed  idea  of  the 
•'  ways  of  Jeroboam  "  affects  the  writer — even  Zimri's  death  is  said  to  be  a 


1 84  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

Another  section  of  the  army  desired  to  try  its  hand  at  king- 
making  and  proclaimed  its  general,  Tibni,  as  king.  The  ensu- 
ing civil  war  seems  to  have  lasted  some  time,1  but  Omri  was  vic- 
torious. He  established  himself  firmly  on  the  throne,  and  under 
himself  and  his  son,  Ahab,  Israel  reached  its  greatest  outward 
prosperity.  Evidence  that  he  impressed  himself  upon  foreigners 
as  an  unusual  man  may  perhaps  be  found  in  the  Assyrian  inscrip- 
tions, for  in  these  Israel  is  the  House  of  Omri,  even  after  the  rise 
of  another  dynasty.*  The  religious  conflict  which  soon  broke 
out  will  occupy  our  attention  later. 

Turning  now  to  the  little  kingdom  of  Judah,  about  all  we  can 
say  is  that  the  house  of  David  maintained  itself  through  the  peri- 
od. The  historian  shows  an  utter  lack  of  interest  in  political 
questions,  while  he  is  punctilious  in  pronouncing  judgment  upon 
the  religious  character  of  the  different  kings.  This  judgment  is 
motived,  however,  by  the  later  (Deuteronomistic)  view  of  the  re- 
ligion of  Israel,  and  utterly  foreign  to  that  which  a  contemporary 
would  have  pronounced.  Moreover,  the  grounds  for  the  verdict 
are  in  almost  every  case  obscure.  We  must  suppose  that  there 
was  a  tradition  concerning  the  attitude  of  the  kings  toward  the 
sanctuary — a  Temple  chronicle  or  something  of  the  kind.  Re- 
hoboam  is  accused  of  folly  by  the  record  we  have  already  consid- 
ered, in  his  inconsiderate  treatment  of  the  best  part  of  his  kingdom, 
resulting  in  his  loss  and  shame.  His  mother  is  said  to  have  been 
an  Ammonite  princess.  According  to  the  Greek  version,  she 
was  a  daughter  of  the  Hanun  upon  whom  David  made  war.* 
Beyond  this  we  know  nothing  of  his  reign,  except  that  the  King 
of  Egypt — the  Shishak  of  whom  we  have  already  heard — invaded 
the  country,  entered  Jerusalem  and  carried  off  the  rich  treasure 

punishment  for  his  walking  in  these  ways  and  making  Israel  to  sin,  though 
the  reign  of  seven  days  would  give  no  opportunity  for  the  king  to  show  his 
policy. 

1  Four  years,  if  we  may  trust  the  data  of  the  text.  Compare  I  Kings,  16 14, 
with  16  *$. 

1  Cf.  Schrader,  Keilinschriften  und  Altes  Test.2,  p.  189  {Cuneiform  Insc. 
and  Old  Test.,  I,  p.  179). 

8  I  Kings,  12  "•  (Swete's  O.  T.  in  Greek).  The  name  of  the  queen-mother 
—the  Gebtra  or  mistress  of  the  palace — is  regularly  given  in  connexion  with 
the  name  of  the  reigning  monarch.  In  polygamous  societies  the  mother  al- 
ways occupies  a  position  of  great  influence,  greater  than  that  of  any  wife,  for 
the  wife  may  be  supplanted  at  any  time  by  a  rival. 


FROM  JEROBOAM  TO  JEHU  l8$ 

stored  in  tke  Temple.1  It  has  been  supposed  that  the  Pharaoh 
was  moved  to  this  step  by  a  desire  to  assist  his  friend  Jeroboam. 
But  the  lists  of  Shishak  himself  seem  to  show  that  he  did  not 
draw  the  line  at  Judah,  but  also  plundered  the  northern  kingdom. 
No  motive  beyond  a  desire  to  seize  the  treasure  at  Jerusalem  need 
be  imputed  to  the  invader.  The  smaller  kingdoms  were  the 
natural  prey  of  the  stronger.  Solomon's  lavish  use  of  gold  was 
probably  a  matter  of  common  fame.  The  gold  shields  of  state 
carried  by  the  royal  guard  on  solemn  occasions  were  captured  at 
this  time.  They  were  replaced  by  Rehoboam  with  shields  of 
copper.1  What  surprises  us  is  that  the  Temple  treasury,  though 
often  plundered,  was  so  soon  replenished. 

The  natural  sequence  of  Shishak's  invasion  would  seem  to  be 
the  dependence  of  Judah  upon  Egypt  and,  in  fact,  it  may  have 
been  the  great  king's  object  to  reassert  the  supremacy  maintained 
long  before  by  his  predecessors.  The  Hebrew  writer  is  discreetly 
silent  on  the  subject.  Nor  does  he  tell  us  anything  of  Rehobo- 
am's  son,  Abijam,5  and  his  brief  reign,  except  that  he  walked  in 
all  the  sins  of  his  father. 

Asa,  son  and  successor  of  Abijam,  is  more  favourably  spoken  of. 
He  is  said  to  have  expelled  the  impure  hieroduli  from  the  land, 
and  to  have  deprived  his  mother  of  her  position  as  mistress  of  the 
palace,  because  she  was  concerned  in  idol  worship.*  The  details 
of  the  alleged  reform  are  obscure;  we  may  suppose  it  a  protest 
against  the  extreme  tolerance  shown  by  Solomon.  More  intelli- 

1  Shishak  (the  name  is  vocalised  in  various  ways  by  the  Egyptologists)  came 
to  the  throne  about  960  B.C.  He  was  the  founder  of  the  twenty-second  dyn- 
asty. Shishak's  list  of  plundered  cities  is  discussed  by  W.  Max  MUller, 
Asien  und  Europa,  p.  i66ff.,  and  also  by  Goldschmied  in  Zeitschr.  d.  Deut~ 
tthen  Morgenl.  Gesellschaft,  LIV,  p.  lyf. 

1  The  Greek  version  makes  the  booty  to  be  the  shields  taken  by  David  from 
Zobah.  As  their  use  when  the  king  went  to  the  temple  is  mentioned,  we  may 
suppose  that  the  king  and  his  guard  performed  their  worship  by  a  solemn 
procession  (i  Kings,  I4*5"*8). 

1  The  name  was  doubtless  Abijah,  which  has  become  corrupted  in  our  copies 
of  i  Kings.  His  mother  is  called  daughter  of  Absalom,  by  which  the  noto- 
rious son  of  David  may  be  meant. 

4  She  is  charged  (i  Kings,  15  "-1*)  with  having  made  a  miphle^tth  for  the 
ashera.  The  word  miphltftth  is  entirely  obscure,  but  from  the  context  it  is 
easy  to  see  that  an  idolatrous  image  is  in  the  mind  of  the  writer.  The  ashera, 
however,  was  in  this  period  an  entirely  innocent  accompaniment  of  the  wor- 
ship of  Yahweh,  so  that  there  is  some  confusion  in  the  mind  of  the  writer,  of 
else  his  text  has  been  corrupted  in  transmission. 


186  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

gible,  though  less  commendable,  is  Asa's  action  with  reference  to 
Baasha,  King  of  Israel.  The  two  Hebrew  kingdoms  had  been  at 
enmity  from  the  time  of  the  division.  Because  Judah  was  much 
more  affected  by  the  Egyptian  invasion  than  was  Israel,  or  be- 
cause it  recuperated  more  slowly,  Baasha  was  able  to  push  his 
frontier  down  to  Ramah,  less  than  five  miles  from  Jerusalem. 
Here  he  proposed  to  stay,  and  began  to  fortify  the  place.  The 
inconvenience  of  a  hostile  fortress  almost  overlooking  the  capital, 
together  with  the  shame  of  having  a  neighbour  assert  his  predomi- 
nance in  the  face  of  all  the  world,  was  more  than  Asa  could 
bear.  With  short-sighted  policy,  he  resorted  to  a  measure  which 
was  repeated  by  his  successors  at  different  times  with  disastrous 
effect.  He  looked  around  for  an  ally  who  would  make  common 
cause  with  him  against  Ephraim.  Such  an  ally  he  found  in 
Israel's  northern  neighbour,  Benhadad,1  of  Damascus.  With  the 
gold  and  silver  at  his  command,  including  what  had  accumulated 
in  the  Temple  since  the  incursion  of  Shishak,  Asa  bribed  Ben- 
hadad to  take  his  part.  The  Syrian,  nothing  loath,  broke  off 
his  relations  with  Baasha,  and  by  an  attack  on  northern  Israel 
forced  him  to  withdraw  from  Ramah.  The  result  was  a  substan- 
tial addition  of  territory  to  the  kingdom  of  Damascus,*  and  the 
inauguration  of  warfare  which  became  chronic  between  Syria 
and  Ephraim.  Judah  received  temporary  relief,  and  Asa  was 
able  to  recover  Ramah,  whose  fortifications  he  razed,  using  the 
materials  in  strengthening  his  frontier  at  Geba  and  Mizpah.  His 
action  was  no  doubt  interpreted  by  the  Syrians  as  an  act  of  sub- 
mission which  involved  the  regular  payment  of  tribute  and  which 
thus  laid  the  foundation  for  future  troubles. 

Omri,  the  founder  of  a  new  dynasty  in  Ephraim,  removed  the 
capital  to  Samaria.  Doubtless  a  city  had  existed  on  this  site 
from  very  ancient  times.  The  strength  of  the  position s  is  shown 

1 1  leave  the  name  as  it  is  in  our  Hebrew  text,  though  there  is  some  reason 
to  suppose  that  the  Aramaic  original  was  different,  cf.  Winckler,  Alttesta- 
mentliche  Untersuchungen,  p.  69  ff. 

1  The  towns  named  are  Ijon,  Dan,  and  Abel-beth-maachah,  all  of  which  are 
in  the  extreme  northern  district.  The  text  adds  "and  all  Cinneroth,  with  the 
whole  land  of  Naphtali."  This  would  mean  the  district  west  of  the  Sea  of 
Galilee,  but  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  Syrians  could  permanently  hold  thii 
part  of  Israel.  The  account  is  found  in  I  Kings,  15  16"". 

•  "  A  round  isolated  hill  over  three  hundred  feet  high,"  in  the  centre  of  a 
fertile  plain,  cf.  Robinson,  Biblical  Researches,  *  11,  p.  304,  G.  A.  Smith, 
Hitt.  Geog.,  p.  346. 


FROM   JEROBOAM   TO  JEHU 

by  the  sieges  which  it  withstood.  The  city  remained  the  seat  of 
government  down  to  the  destruction  of  the  northern  kingdom. 
Omri's  ability  is  indicated  not  only  by  the  prominence  of  his 
name  in  Assyrian  annals,  but  also  by  the  fact  that  he  conquered 
or  reconquered  Moab,  as  we  learn  from  the  inscription  of  Mesha. 
The  Hebrew  historian  accuses  him  of  walking  in  the  sins  of  Jero- 
boam, but  this  is  the  stereotyped  charge  against  all  the  kings  of 
Israel.  The  source  from  which  the  writer  drew  seems  to  have 
laid  special  stress  upon  the  power  of  the  king,  but  the  details  of 
that  power  and  its  exercise  are  lost  to  us. 

Ahab,  the  son  who  succeeded  to  the  throne,  receives  an  evil 
name  first  because  he  married  Jezebel,  daughter  of  Ethbaal,  king 
of  the  Sidonians,  or,  as  we  should  put  it,  King  of  Tyre.1  The 
foreign  marriage  was  no  more  than  had  been  customary  with  the 
kings  of  Israel.  David  married  a  Philistine  or  Canaanite  princess. 
Solomon  had  not  only  an  Egyptian  king's  daughter,  but  also 
princesses  from  Ammon  and  other  neighbouring  nations.  Jezebel, 
however,  was  a  more  energetic  personage  than  any  of  these.  She 
made  herself  conspicuous  by  the  ruthless  way  in  which  she  urged 
Ahab  to  assert  the  royal  power.  In  this  way  she  made  herself 
not  only  conspicuous  but  hated,  and  the  hatred  easily  extended 
itself  to  all  the  measures  associated  with  her  name. 

An  example  of  her  influence  in  the  administration  of  affairs  is 
the  outrage  upon  Naboth.  It  is  refreshing  to  find  in  an  oriental 
monarchy  a  subject  who  is  not  altogether  subservient  to  the 
wishes  of  his  sovereign.  Naboth  was  such  a  subject.  When  the 
king  coveted  his  vineyard  he  sturdily  refused  to  sell  it — the  family 
inheritance  was  too  precious  to  be  alienated.  Ahab  understood 
and  perhaps  valued  the  sturdy  Israelite  independence,  though 
his  vexation  at  the  opposition  was  acute.  At  any  rate,  he  saw 
no  way  to  attain  his  desire  in  the  face  of  refusal.  But  Jezebel 
had  a  different  idea  of  royal  prerogative.  The  Sheikhs  of  the 
town  were  subservient  enough  to  act  upon  a  hint  from  her. 
Naboth  was  arraigned  and  executed  upon  false  witness  suborned 
by  them.  The  owner  being  thus  put  out  of  the  way,  it  was  easy 
to  seize  the  coveted  vineyard.  Such  methods  were  abhorrent  to 
Israelite  feeling,  and  this  feeling  was  voiced  by  the  prophet  who 
lought  out  the  king  as  he  entered  upon  his  new  possession,  and 

1  What  is  known  of  him  may  be  found  in  Pictschmann,  Getck.  der  Pktni- 
•«r  (1889),  p.  297  f. 


1 88  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

to  his  face  denounced  his  crime:  "Hast  thou  murdered  and 
robbed?  In  the  place  where  the  dogs  licked  up  Naboth's  blood 
shall  they  lick  up  thine  also."  1  That  the  king  was  not  hardened 
in  his  course  is  evident  from  his  repentance  which  followed  and 
which  seems  to  have  been  openly  expressed.  To  later  genera- 
tions, however,  the  blood  of  Naboth  seemed  to  rest  on  the  house 
of  Omri,  and  the  fall  of  the  dynasty  was  interpreted  as  the  divine 
requisition  of  that  blood. 

The  marriage  with  Jezebel  was  doubtless  intended  to  cement 
an  alliance  of  the  two  kingdoms  represented.  Ahab  was  also  on 
friendly  terms  with  Judah.  Very  likely  he  was  trying  to 
strengthen  himself  against  the  Syrians  of  Damascus,  his  hereditary 
enemies.*  Unfortunately  we  are  not  able  to  make  out  the  course 
of  events  with  any  clearness.  Twice  during  Ahab's  reign  the 
Syrians  seem  to  have  penetrated  to  the  centre  of  Israel,  and  to 
have  besieged  the  capital,  but  the  final  result  was  in  favour  of 
Israel.  Ahab  was  not  anxious  to  press  his  advantage  and  made 
an  agreement  with  Benhadad,  by  which  a  quarter  was  to  be  set 
apart  for  Israelite  traders  in  Damascus,  and  a  similar  concession 
was  to  be  made  to  the  Damascus  merchants  in  Samaria.  The 
pledges  given  were  not  kept  by  Benhadad,  and  Ahab  went  to 
war  again  with  the  help  of  Jehoshaphat,  to  force  the  promised 
surrender  of  Ramoth  Gilead.  This,  however,  was  near  the  close 
of  Ahab's  life,  and  the  whole  Syrian  controversy  possibly  belongs 
in  the  latter  part  of  his  reign. 

Our  sources  give  a  large  space  to  the  life  of  Elijah  the  prophet, 
which  comes  within  this  reign.  The  activity  of  this  extraordi- 
nary man  is  described  to  us  in  terms  that  show  what  impression  he 
made  on  his  contemporaries,  rather  than  what  he  was  in  himself, 
and  what  he  accomplished  for  Israel.  The  legendary  accretions 
of  the  narrative  are  only  too  evident.  Among  its  exaggerations 
we  may  count  the  assertion  that  Jezebel  was  an  active  persecutor 
of  the  religion  of  Yahweh.  The  statement  that  she  slew  all 
the  prophets  of  Yahweh  is  inconsistent  with  the  fact  that  Ahab 
maintained  a  band  of  four  hundred  court  prophets,  from  whom 
he  inquired  the  will  of  Yahweh.  In  a  scene  which  we  shall  con- 

1 1  Kings,  21 n. 

1  Winckler  supposes  that  Ahab  was  incited  by  Assyria  in  his  hostility  to 
Damascus.  In  fact,  Assyria  was  beginning  to  take  a  lively  interest  in  the 
affairs  of  Syria;  cf*  Keilinschriften  und  Altes  Test.  8,  pp.  43  and  166. 


FROM  JEROBOAM   TO  JEHU  189 

sider  later,  Jehoshaphat  of  Judah,  who  was  certainly  a  faithful 
worshipper  of  Israel's  God,  was  present,  and  had  no  suspicion 
that  these  were  anything  but  genuine  prophets  of  Yahweh.  Mica- 
iah,  who  is  called  in  because  of  his  independence  of  the  court, 
does  not  intimate  that  the  court  prophets  were  devoted  to  any 
other  God  than  his  own,  though  he  supposes  them  to  be  deceived.1 
The  existence  of  such  a  body  of  Yahweh  prophets  at  the  capital 
at  the  very  close  of  Ahab's  life  is  incomprehensible  if  any  serious 
attempt  had  been  made  to  suppress  the  ancestral  religion.  To 
this  must  be  added  the  significant  fact  that  Ahab  gave  his  chil- 
dren names  compounded  with  that  of  Yahweh.1  It  may  be  doubt- 
ed, moreover,  whether  Jehoshaphat  would  have  made  alliance 
and  intermarriage  with  an  avowed  enemy  of  Israel's  God. 

Nevertheless,  we  must  suppose  that  some  sort  of  religious  con- 
test went  on  in  Israel  during  Ahab's  reign.  The  origin  of  it  may 
also  be  attributed  with  some  certainty  to  Jezebel.  As  Solomon's 
wives  had  their  sanctuaries  in  which  they  might  worship  each  her 
own  god,  so  this  queen  had  a  temple  of  the  Tyrian  Baal  erected  at 
Samaria.  This  sanctuary  received  importance  from  the  political 
alliance  of  Tyre  and  Israel.  Whether  the  fact  that  Jezebel's  father 
was  a  priest  of  Astarte  increased  her  zeal  for  her  own  religion  we 
cannot  say.  But  it  would  not  be  surprising  to  find  a  priest's 
daughter  industrious  in  adorning  the  religion  she  professed,  in 
such  a  way  as  to  make  it  attractive  to  her  subjects.  The  officials 
at  court  would  pay  their  respects  to  the  Tyrian  god  for  reasons 
of  state.  It  would  be  natural  for  others  to  join  them  in  seeking 
the  advantages  of  a  new  religion.  In  this  way  a  party  of  Baal 
worshippers  was  formed  in  the  capital.  They  were  not  numer- 
ous even  there,  as  we  learn  from  their  easy  suppression  by  Jehu, 
and  it  is  not  likely  that  many  were  found  in  the  provinces. 

Political  and  religious  opposition  go  together  in  the  East.     We 

1  It  is  evident  that  our  account  of  Ahab  is  made  up  from  at  least  two  dif- 
ferent sources,  one  of  which  painted  him  much  blacker  than  he  was.  The 
account  referred  to  above  (i  Kings,  22 1~w)  is  from  the  older  source.  On  the 
literary  questions  the  reader  may  consult  Driver,  Literature  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, or  the  recent  commentaries  to  Kings. 

'The  son  who  succeeded  him  was  called  Ahaziah  (Yahweh  is  strong);  th« 
second  son,  who  also  came  to  the  throne,  was  Jehoram  (Yahweh  is  exalted); 
and  the  daughter  who  married  Jehoshaphat  was  Athaliah  (Yahweh  is  great[?]). 
Another  son,  Joash,  is  mentioned,  whose  name  is  of  similar  composition, 
ftough  one  element  is  of  unknown  meaning  (i  Kings,  23  "). 


IQO  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

cannot  doubt  that  Elijah  was  a  pronounced  opponent  of  the  for- 
eign queen.  His  sympathy  with  the  common  people  would  lead 
him  to  denounce  acts  of  oppression  like  the  murder  of  Naboth. 
Denunciation  of  the  imported  religion  and  customs  would  natu- 
rally come  next.  And  the  Tyrian  Baal,  becoming  the  object  of 
hatred,  would  involve  the  other  Baals  whose  worship  had  already 
been  adopted  in  Israel. 

We  have  already  had  occasion  to  notice  that  Yahweh  was  orig- 
inally the  God  of  the  desert,  whose  home  was  in  Horeb,  Sinai, 
or  Kadesh.  Horeb  was  still  his  main  seat,  even  down  to  the 
writing  of  the  life  of  Elijah.  Although  by  the  Ark,  or  by  the 
Tabernacle,  or  in  some  way,  He  had  been  brought  by  the  nomads 
into  Canaan,  He  was  not  (in  the  mind  of  the  Israelites)  the  God 
of  the  land.  The  land  was  in  possession  of  numerous  local 
divinities  (Baals).  Yahweh  might  dispossess  these,  as  in  some 
cases  He  dispossessed  their  worshippers.  But,  for  the  most  part, 
the  conquest  was  by  amalgamation  rather  than  by  violence. 
Where  alliances  were  formed  with  the  older  inhabitants  their  gods 
were  recognised.  The  connubium  (as  was  rightly  seen  by  the 
Deuteronomist)  involved  the  worship  of  the  divinities  of  both 
parties.  Moreover,  it  was  the  nai've  idea  of  the  desert  peoples 
that  the  Baals  would  be  better  acquainted  with  agriculture  than 
was  their  own  God.  It  would  be  safer  for  the  cultivator  to 
look  to  them  for  the  fruits  of  the  ground.  Israel's  constant 
temptation  would  be  to  worship  Yahweh  and  at  the  same  time 
serve  the  other  gods — as  the  Assyrian  colonists  were  reproached 
with  doing  later.  The  tendency  was  reinforced  by  the  greater 
attractiveness  of  the  Canaanite  sanctuaries.  Here  all  the  re- 
sources of  the  superior  civilisation  were  brought  into  play  to 
make  the  people  "rejoice  before  their  god." 

So  far  had  this  syncretism  gone,  that  Yahweh  and  Baal  had 
become  practically  identified  in  the  minds  of  the  people  at  large. 
This  was  easy,  because  the  word  Baal  (Lord)  could  be  applied 
to  any  God.  One  could  say  without  offence  that  Yahweh  was 
Israel's  Baal.  From  this  point  of  view,  we  can  understand  the 
use  of  the  word  Baal  in  Israelite  proper  names,  where  there  is  no 
thought  of  backsliding  from  the  religion  of  Israel.  Gideon  was 
called  by  a  name  compounded  with  Baal.  So  was  a  son  of  Saul, 
and  a  grandson  of  his  as  well.  David  gave  a  similar  name  to  at 
least  one  of  his  sons.  In  all  these  cases  there  can  be  no  suspicion 


FROM  JEROBOAM   TO  JEHU  IQI 

of  departure  from  the  religion  of  Yahweh.  Nevertheless,  the  con- 
fusion between  Israel's  Baal  and  the  Baals  of  Canaan  was  dan- 
gerous in  its  tendency,  likely  to  lead  in  the  long  run  to  the 
prevalence  of  the  sensual  and  polytheistic  religion  of  Canaan, 
and  unless  counteracted  certain  to  result  in  the  degradation  of 
Yahweh  to  a  place  among  a  multitude  of  gods. 

So  far  as  we  know,  no  protest  came  until  the  days  of  Ahab. 
Then  it  seems  that  the  introduction  of  the  Tyrian  Baal  led  to 
more  serious  reflection  on  the  nature  of  Yahweh,  as  contrasted 
with  the  nature  of  the  Baals  in  general.  The  result  was  a  reaction 
against  the  Canaanitish  elements  of  the  popular  religion,  in  favour 
of  the  primitive  and  simple  worship  of  the  desert.  No  doubt  this 
was,  in  part,  a  revolt  against  civilisation  itself.  The  nomad,  ac- 
customed to  privation,  sees  something  abnormal  in  the  luxuries 
of  a  wealthy  society.  He  has  reason  to  be  shocked  by  the  vices 
of  the  towns.  The  older  society  into  which  the  Israelites  had 
come  was — in  comparison  with  the  desert  life — both  luxurious  and 
vicious,  and  its  religion  partook  of  both  characteristics.  The 
prophets  of  a  later  time  tell  us  plainly  that  the  sanctuaries  of 
the  land  were  given  over  to  feasting  and  drunkenness  and  gross 
sensuality. 

In  the  time  of  Ahab  we  meet  striking  testimony  to  this  reac- 
tion in  the  person  of  Jonadab  ben  Rechab.  This  man,  who  was 
chosen  by  Jehu  to  witness  his  zeal  for  the  ancestral  religion,  was 
himself  an  embodiment  of  zeal  on  this  behalf.  He  had  laid  upon 
his  clan  a  solemn  injunction  to  drink  no  wine,  to  build  no  house, 
to  sow  no  seed,  to  plant  and  own  no  vineyard.  They  were  to 
live  the  old  nomad  life  in  tents  for  ever.1  Such  a  vow  could  have 
none  but  a  religious  motive,  and  the  motive  in  this  case  must 
have  been  devotion  to  the  ancestral  religion,  in  opposition  to 
Canaanitish  innovations. 

Elijah  was  the  hero  and  leader  of  the  reaction  of  which  Jonadab 
was  a  symptom.  Jonadab  contented  himself  with  the  salvation 
of  his  own  clan  ;  Elijah  preached  the  crusade  among  the  people 
at  large.  From  the  meagre  descriptions  which  have  come  down 
to  us,  we  conclude  that  the  prophet  was  a  typical  Bedawy — the 
man  clothed  in  a  blanket  of  hair.  His  native  district  was  Gilead, 
a  region  where  the  Israelites  longest  retained  the  pastoral  life. 
His  sudden  appearances  and  disappearances,  and  his  long  desert 
'Jeremiah,  35  >-". 


192  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

journeys,  show  the  nomad's  acquaintance  with  the  country,  its 
rocks  and  hiding  places.  His  protest  against  the  current  religion 
is  made  known  by  his  flight  to  Horeb — only  here  could  he  be 
sure  of  the  effective  protection  of  Israel's  God.  He  believed  that 
the  Israelites,  in  forsaking  their  rude,  primitive  altars  of  unhewn 
stone,  and  in  thronging  the  luxurious  sanctuaries  of  Canaan,  were 
really  forsaking  Yahweh.  To  call  their  new  Baal  by  the  old  name 
of  Yahweh  did  not  diminish  their  guilt.  His  proclamation  of 
the  famine  was  a  protest  against  the  popular  idea  that  Baal  was 
the  giver  of  fruitfulness.  By  withholding  rain  and  mist,  and  mak- 
ing the  judgments  known  to  His  prophet,  Yahweh,  God  of  Israel, 
showed  who  was  master  of  the  elements  in  His  land.  It  was  be- 
coming plain  that  Israel  could  not  serve  two  masters.  For  the 
first  time,  perhaps,  it  was  borne  home  to  them  that  Yahweh  is  a 
jealous  God,  who  tolerates  no  rival  in  the  affections  of  His  people. 

The  legend-building  imagination  of  later  times  has  embodied 
Elijah's  life-work  in  the  scene  at  Mount  Carmel,  where  the 
prophet  stands  alone  against  the  four  hundred  prophets  of  Baal, 
and  where  the  answer  by  fire  brings  the  people  back  to  their  al- 
legiance.1 We  cannot  suppose  the  incident  historical  in  the  form 
in  which  it  is  narrated.  After  such  a  triumph  we  can  find  no 
reason  for  Elijah's  flight  to  Horeb,  or  for  the  despairing  cry 
there  uttered,  that  he  alone  was  left  of  the  true  servants  of  Yah- 
weh. We  may,  however,  suppose  that  the  prophet's  active  op- 
position to  Baal-worship,  combined  with  his  championship  of  the 
rights  of  the  people  against  the  tyranny  of  the  queen  *  brought 
upon  him  the  wrath  of  Jezebel,  and  that  he  was  compelled  to 
flee  the  country. 

The  weapons  of  this  warfare  were  not  exclusively  spiritual. 
The  separation  of  church  and  state  is  a  modern  and  occidental 
idea.  In  an  oriental  society,  the  religious  propaganda  could  not 
be  separated  from  political  machinations.  We  must,  therefore, 
think  of  the  prophetic  party  as  political  in  their  method  and 
aims.  This  is  plainly  the  view  of  our  documents,  for  at  Horeb, 

1  I  Kings,  1 8. 

1  The  prophet  boldly  confronted  Ahab  in  the  act  of  taking  possession  of 
his  plunder  and  denounced  his  punishment  as  was  noticed  above.  The  dif- 
ficulty the  narrator  found  in  making  the  events  fulfil  the  prophecy  is  evidence 
of  the  genuineness  of  the  prediction.  He  was  obliged  to  assume  that  the 
fulfilment  was  postponed  by  Ahab's  repentance,  or  to  see  a  meagre  accom- 
plishment in  the  blood  washed  from  the  king's  chariot 


FROM  JEROBOAM   TO  JEHU  193 

where  Elijah  has  fled  for  intimate  communion  with  Yahweh,  he 
receives  the  command  to  do — what  ?  To  anoint  Jehu  king  over 
Israel,  and  Hazael  king  over  Damascus,  that  is,  to  foment  rebell- 
ion in  both  the  kingdoms  concerned.  The  injunction  as  it 
has  come  down  to  us  is,  indeed,  a  reflection  of  the  actual  course 
of  history  as  seen  by  the  later  writer.  But  it  is  probably  true  to 
the  facts  in  its  conception  of  the  prophetic  programme  and 
methods.  Elisha,  the  intimate  friend  and  disciple  of  Elijah,  did 
encourage  Jehu's  rebellion,  and  we  hear  of  no  one  who  con- 
demned the  new  king's  drastic  and  cruel  measures.  The  party 
of  Elijah,  therefore,  was  not  made  up  of  harmless  religious  enthu- 
siasts. The  prophetic  guilds,  of  which  we  now  hear  again  after  a 
long  interval,  were  hotbeds  of  sedition  as  well  as  homes  of  the 
contemplative  life.1 

Were  they  homes  of  the  contemplative  life  ?  Probably  not. 
We  understand  under  this  term  the  quietism  of  the  mystics.  Con- 
vents of  dervishes  exist  for  stimulation  of  the  religious  emotions. 
These  emotions  easily  become  fanaticism.  Too  often,  under  the 
conviction  of  possessing  the  special  favour  of  God,  the  members 
of  these  societies  set  themselves  above  the  law,  and  plot  the  over- 
throw of  dynasties.  Their  temper  in  the  days  of  Ahab  is  made 
evident  from  an  incident  that  has  come  down  to  us.  In  the 
course  of  the  Syrian  wars,  Benhadad  fell  into  the  power  of  Ahab, 
and  an  honourable  peace  was  concluded  between  them.  A  mem- 
ber of  the  prophetic  order  disguised  himself  as  a  soldier,  and  when 
the  king  went  by  called  for  justice.  When  allowed  to  state  his 
case  he  pretended  that  he  had  been  entrusted  with  a  prisoner 
whom  he  had  carelessly  allowed  to  escape,  so  that  the  man  for 
whom  he  had  the  prisoner  in  charge  was  now  threatening  his  life. 
The  king's  decision  was  that  the  life  was  indeed  forfeit,  and  this 
decision  the  prophet  hastened  to  turn  against  the  king  himself.1 
The  party  of  no  compromise  has  never  more  completely  revealed 
itself.  In  this  case  their  policy  of  "  thorough  "  could  have  no 
result  except  to  embitter  the  feeling  between  the  two  nations. 
Political  wisdom  had  no  part  in  their  programme.  Their  watch- 
word was  war  to  the  knife  against  all  foreigners,  and  the  rigidity 
of  their  logic  was  proof  against  all  considerations  of  expediency. 

1  On  the  prophetic  guilds  and  Nazirites,  cf.  W.  R.  Smith,  The  Propkttt 
tf  Israel*  p.  84(1. 
•  I  Kings,  20  *•«. 


194  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

The  rank  and  file  of  the  party  doubtless  show  its  worst  features. 
Elijah  appeals  to  us  by  the  courage  with  which  he  contended 
against  enormous  odds.  He  was  taken  away  before  the  coming 
of  the  revolution  which  he  planned.  We  may  be  allowed  to 
doubt  whether  he  would  have  been  satisfied  with  the  way  in  which 
his  party  secured  their  triumph.1  The  later  prophets  did  not  hesi- 
tate to  pronounce  severe  judgment  on  the  bloodshed  by  which 
Jehu  secured  the  throne. 

In  looking  around  for  further  light  on  the  period  now  under 
review,  we  are  at  first  inclined  to  make  use  of  the  memoirs  of  Eli- 
sha.  But  close  consideration  shows  that  they  are,  in  large  part, 
simply  a  duplication  of  those  of  Elijah.  Historical  material  can 
scarcely  be  extracted  from  them.  But  from  other  sources  we 
discover  that  events  were  preparing  for  Israel  in  a  region  of 
which  Israel  had  little  knowledge,  and  as  yet  no  fear.  The 
great  kingdom  of  Assyria  began  now  to  threaten  the  coast-lands 
of  the  Mediterranean.  We  have  already  had  occasion  to  notice 
the  hold  which  Babylon  had  on  Palestine  in  a  very  early  time. 
During  the  period  of  the  Hebrew  invasion  and  conquest,  the  king- 
doms of  the  Euphrates  valley  were  busy  elsewhere.  Babylon  had 
now  taken  the  second  place,  having  yielded  to  the  greater  vigour 
of  Assyria,  its  northern  neighbour,  whose  capital  was  Nineveh. 
Assyria,  in  the  reign  of  Omri,  was  showing  new  strength,  and 
beginning  to  turn  its  attention  to  the  west.  Asshurnazirpal  (B.C. 
884-860)  is  described  as  the  conqueror  of  the  region  from  the 
Tigris  to  the  Lebanon  and  the  Great  Sea.  He  himself  boasts  of 
an  expedition  in  which  he  climbed  the  Lebanon,  cleansed  his 
weapons  in  the  Great  Sea,  and  received  the  tribute  of  Tyre  and 
Sidon,  with  other  cities  of  the  region.1  Israel  seems  to  have  lain 
outside  the  sphere  of  influence  thus  secured,  though  one  would  think 
that  the  experience  of  so  near  a  neighbour  as  Tyre  would  have  a 
lesson  for  the  most  thoughtless.  The  next  Assyrian  king,  Shal- 
maneser  II,  came  into  contact  with  Ahab  at  the  battle  of 
Karkar,  in  northern  Syria.  Here  the  kingdoms  of  Syria  and 
Palestine  were  united  to  resist  the  Assyrian  advance.  According 
to  the  inscriptions,  the  allied  forces  included  twelve  hundred 

1  An  interesting  article  on  Elijah  (by  Gunkel)  may  be  found  in  the  Preut- 
tiichf  Jahrbiicher  for  1897,  pp.  18-51. 

1  Keilimchriftliche  Bibliothek,  pp.  95,  109.  No  Assyrian  king  had  come 
90  far  to  the  west  since  Tiglath-pileser  I,  more  than  a  hundred  years  earlier. 


FROM   JEROBOAM    TO  JEHU  195 

Chariots,  twelve  hundred  horsemen,  and  twenty  thousand  footmen 
of  Hadadezer  of  Damascus,  while  Ahab  is  credited  with  two  thou- 
sand chariots  and  ten  thousand  men.1  The  number  of  chariots 
seems  incredible,  but  the  Assyrian  may  exaggerate  for  his  own 
glory.  He  claims  a  complete  victory,  but  it  is  possible  the  re- 
sult was  so  indecisive  that  the  allies  could  deceive  themselves  into 
thinking  they  had  warded  off  any  immediate  danger. 

It  has  been  supposed  that  Ahab  sent  his  troops  to  Karkar  as  a 
vassal  of  Benhadad,  in  which  case  the  battle  must  have  preceded 
the  defeat  of  Syria,  and  the  treaty  between  the  two  kings  already 
narrated.  It  is  difficult  to  suppose,  however,  that  Benhadad 
could  compel  the  attendance  of  such  an  army  as  is  ascribed  to 
Ahab  by  the  Assyrian  inscription.  It  seems  more  probable  that 
the  treaty  made  between  the  two  powers  was  an  alliance,  offensive 
and  defensive,  against  the  Assyrian.  It  must  be  admitted  that 
few  men  in  Israel  were  so  far-sighted  as  to  apprehend  danger 
from  the  Euphrates  kingdom.  But  Ahab  seems  to  have  had  un- 
usual political  wisdom,  and  the  fact  that  Tyre  had  been  obliged 
to  make  concessions  to  the  invaders  was  likely  (owing  to  his  inti- 
macy with  that  city)  to  make  a  strong  impression  upon  him.  It 
can  hardly  be  called  unreasonable,  therefore,  to  suppose  that 
Ahab  was  the  moving  spirit  in  the  alliance.  After  Karkar,  Ben- 
hadad seems  to  have  made  some  sort  of  arrangement  with  Assyria 
that  left  him  free  to  carry  on  the  old  feud  with  Israel. 

The  bone  of  contention  was  Ramoth  Gilead,  a  fortified  town 
to  which  Israel  had  a  title,  but  which  Syria  had  in  possession. 
Ahab  had  as  his  ally  Jehoshaphat  of  Judah,  his  son-in-law.  The 
council  of  state  in  which  the  two  kings  decided  on  the  campaign 
is  vividly  described  for  us.  The  court  prophets  were  unanimous 
in  urging  war.  A  certain  Micaiah,  who  did  not  belong  to  their 
number,  had  a  more  gloomy  outlook,  but  his  prediction  did  not 
make  any  change  in  the  king's  determination.  The  reputation 
of  Ahab  for  courage  and  ability  is  indicated  by  the  orders  given 
to  the  Syrian  army — namely  to  make  him  the  special  object  of 
attack.  In  the  hope  of  avoiding  his  fate,  the  king  disguised  him- 
self before  going  into  battle.  But  a  chance  arrow  found  a  vul- 
nerable spot,  and  he  met  his  death  bravely  fighting  against  the 

1  The  detailed  enumeration  is  given  on  the  great  monolith  of  Shalmaneser 
(Keilinschr.  Bibliothek,  I,  p.  173).  An  annalistic  inscription  of  the  king 
dales  the  battle  in  the  sixth  year  of  his  reign,  that  is,  B.C.  854  (ibid.,  p.  133  f.> 


196  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

enemies  of  Israel.  Disdaining  to  turn  his  back  to  the  foe,  he 
had  his  attendants  support  him  in  his  chariot  so  long  as  the  fight- 
ing continued.  At  sunset  he  died,  and  the  body  was  brought 
home  to  Samaria  for  burial. 

Ahab's  son,  Ahaziah,  died  after  a  short  reign  and  was  suc- 
ceeded by  his  brother  Joram.  It  was  perhaps  during  his  reign 
that  the  Syrians  again  besieged  Samaria  and  reduced  it  to  fam- 
ine. The  siege  was  lifted  so  suddenly  that  the  Hebrews  could 
only  suppose  a  special  intervention  of  divine  power.  The  camp 
of  the  besiegers  was  found  deserted,  and  their  track  was  marked 
by  the  weapons  and  accoutrements  which  they  had  thrown  away 
in  their  hasty  retreat.  The  most  natural  hypothesis  seemed  to 
be  that  a  panic  had  fallen  upon  them  in  which  they  heard  the 
noise  of  an  invading  army ;  that  they  leaped  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  Israelites  had  secured  the  help  of  the  Hittites  and  Mu- 
9rites.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  retreat  had  another  reason.  A 
new  Assyrian  invasion  threatened  Damascus,  and  to  meet  this,  all 
available  forces  must  be  gathered  as  soon  as  possible  at  the  capital. 

A  renewed  endeavour  to  regain  Ramoth  Gilead  was  made, 
while  the  Syrians  were  thus  kept  busy  at  home.  In  this  cam- 
paign Joram  was  wounded,  and  was  obliged  to  return  to  Jezreel. 
While  there  convalescing  he  was  visited  by  his  nephew  Ahaziah, 
of  Judah.  The  siege  was  continued  under  the  direction  of  Jehu 
ben  Nimshi,  the  general  of  the  army. 

The  chronicle  of  petty  wars  is  not  complete  without  mention 
of  the  Moabite  revolt.  This  nation  (or  tribe)  which  had  been 
subdued  by  David  had  regained  its  independence  under  some  of 
the  later  kings,  but  was  again  subdued  by  the  energy  of  Omri.1 
It  paid  tribute  to  Omri  and  Ahab,  but  after  Ahab's  death  (it 
would  seem)  it  again  revolted.  From  the  confused  account  of 
the  Hebrew  text,  we  gather  that  Israel  and  Judah  in  conjunction 
invaded  the  country  and  besieged  the  capital.  So  great  was  the 
extremity  that  the  Moabite  king  offered  his  first-born  son  as  a 
sacrifice  to  his  god.  A  reverse  or  calamity  of  some  kind  falling 
upon  Israel  soon  after  was  regarded  by  both  parties  as  a  proof  of 
the  efficacy  of  the  sacrifice,  and  Israel  retreated  from  the  land. 
Mesha,  the  hero  of  this  incident,  has  left  on  record  a  testimonial 
to  the  help  of  Chemosh  the  national  divinity.  In  this  he  con- 

1  It  is  possible  that  the  poetical  fragments  now  preserved  in  Num. 
21 u  *••  *1"so  commemorate  the  wars  of  OmrL 


FROM  JEROBOAM   TO  JEHU 

fesses  that  Omri  oppressed  Israel  a  long  time,  "  for  Chemosh 
was  angry  with  his  land."  The  period  of  subjection  is  reckoned 
at  forty  years.1  After  its  expiration  Chemosh  was  again  gracious, 
and  with  his  help  Moab  threw  off  the  oppressor's  yoke.  Mesha 
was  able  to  carry  the  war  into  the  enemy's  country  and  conquer 
many  of  the  cities  of  Israel.  Some  of  these  cities  were  "  de- 
voted "  to  Chemosh,  and  the  god  was  permitted  to  feast  his  eyes 
upon  the  extermination  of  their  inhabitants.  This  vivid  state- 
ment from  the  hand  of  the  chief  actor  in  the  tragedy  reveals 
a  state  of  things  which  the  Hebrew  historian  prefers  to  pass  over 
in  silence. 

Concerning  Jehoshaphat  the  King  of  Judah,  whose  reign  was 
for  the  most  part  contemporaneous  with  that  of  Ahab,  there  is 
little  to  say.  The  Hebrew  historian  commends  him  on  the 
ground  that  he  followed  the  example  of  Asa,  his  father.*  This 
must  mean  that  he  reformed  the  cultus,  and  in  fact  it  is  added 
that  he  completed  the  purgation  of  the  Temple  by  removing  the 
remnant  of  the  Temple  prostitutes  {Kedeshini).  Beyond  this, 
the  historian  seems  to  know  of  the  king's  wars,  though  he  does 
not  relate  them.  He  tells  that  Edom  was  subject,  and  that  the 
king  attempted  to  revive  the  Red  Sea  commerce,  but  without 
success.  The  earliest  of  our  Hebrew  sources  seems  not  to  have 
judged  Jehoshaphat  harshly  for  his  alliance  with  Ahab — an  alli- 
ance that  was  cemented  by  the  marriage  of  the  Judaite  crown 
prince  with  Athaliah,  Ahab's  daughter.  In  this  writer's  eyes 
(we  may  conclude),  Ahab  was  not  an  apostate  from  Yahweh. 

The  successors  of  Jehoshaphat  are  of  no  importance  to  the  his- 
tory. In  the  reign  of  Jehoram,  Edom  made  its  revolt  good,  and 
Libnah,  a  fortified  town  on  the  border,  went  over  to  the  Philis- 
tines. Ahaziah,  who  came  next  to  the  throne,  reigned  but  one 
year,  and  was  then  involved  in  the  catastrophe  which  overtook 
the  house  of  Omri. 

1  The  number  is  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  data  of  the  Hebrew  text. 
The  combined  reigns  of  Omri  and  Ahab  here  cover  thirty-four  years.  Mesh* 
evidently  makes  the  oppression  begin  after  the  accession  of  Omri,  and  end 
about  the  middle  of  Ahab's  reign.  Cf.  the  article  "Chronology"  in  the 
Encycl.  Bib.,  I,  p.  792,  note,  where  a  somewhat  different  translation  is  pro- 
posed. Cf.  also  Paton,  Early  History  of  Syria,  p.  216,  and  Die  Inschrijl 
des  Konig's  Mesa  by  Smend  and  Socin. 

*l  Kings,  22  **.  The  Greek  version  inserts  the  paragraph,  vv.41-41,  after 
16"  because  it  makes  the  accession  of  Jehoshaphat  precede  that  of  Ahab. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE   HOUSE    OF   JEHU 

RAMOTH  GILEAD*  was  still  in  question  between  the  two  king- 
doms of  Syria  and  Israel.  Joram2  ben  Ahab  had  again  besieged 
it,  and  when  compelled  by  his  wounds  to  retire  to  Jezreel,  he 
left  Jehu,  his  general,  to  carry  on  the  siege.  Some  indications 
there  are  that  the  work  was  nearly  done  ;  perhaps  the  town  itself 
was  in  the  hands  of  Israel,  the  citadel  alone  remaining  stubborn. 
The  general  was  one  day  seated  in  council  with  his  officers,  when 
a  young  man,  bearing  the  marks  of  travel,  and  labouring  under 
the  mental  excitement  that  marked  the  members  of  the  prophetic 
guild,  entered  the  room.  In  response  to  his  cry,  "I  have  busi- 
ness for  thee,  O  General !  ' '  Jehu  asked  which  of  them  was 
meant,  and,  on  being  assured  that  he  was  the  one  concerned,  took 
the  young  man  into  his  private  apartment.  Without  delay,  the 
newcomer  poured  oil  upon  the  head  of  the  officer,  with  the 
declaration :  ' '  Thus  saith  Yahweh,  God  of  Israel ;  I  have 
anointed  thee  king  over  the  people  of  Yahweh,  over  Israel."  He 
then  rushed  out  of  the  house  and  disappeared  as  suddenly  as  he 
had  come.8 

Jehu,  interrogated  by  his  comrades  as  to  the  errand  of  "this 
crazy  fellow,"  attempted  to  pass  it  off  as  a  mad  freak  only,  but 
when  pressed,  he  related  what  had  actually  taken  place.  The 
enthusiasm  of  the  army  for  its  general  readily  took  up  the  cry, 
Jehu  is  king ;  a  rude  throne  was  extemporised  at  the  head  of  a 
staircase,  the  trumpet  was  blown,  and  the  new  king  received  the 
congratulations  and  the  allegiance  of  his  soldiers.  The  energy 

1  This  is  the  form  of  the  name  in  the  received  Hebrew  text ;  Ramath 
Gilead  would  be  the  more  natural  vocalisation.  The  locality  is  not  yet  cer- 
tainly identified. 

*The  Hebrew  text  gives  sometimes  the  longer  form,  Jehoram,  and  some- 
times the  shorter  form,  Joram,  for  the  son  of  Jehoshaphat  and  also  for  the 
son  of  Ahab.  I  have  retained  one  form  for  each  monarch. 

1 2  Kings,  9 1~*.  The  verses  which  follow,  and  which  command  the  exter* 
mination  of  Ahab's  house,  are  a  later  expansion. 

198 


THE  HOUSE  OF  JEHU  199 

which  had  already  made  him  famous  marked  him  as  the  right 
man  to  head  a  revolution.  That  it  was  no  sudden  freak  of  a 
half-crazy  journeyman  prophet  which  put  him  on  the  throne  we 
may  well  imagine.  Tradition  itself  makes  him  to  have  been  Eli- 
jah's candidate  for  the  throne.  Elisha's  disciple  did  but  fire  a 
train  that  had  long  been  laid  by  the  party  opposed  to  the  house 
of  Omri.  The  disability  of  the  actual  occupant  of  the  throne 
gave  opportunity  for  striking  a  long-meditated  blow. 

Jehu's  character  comes  to  view  in  the  prompt  measures  he  took 
to  secure  the  throne.  He  first  arranged  that  no  news  of  the  event 
should  precede  him.1  With  a  small  band  of  picked  horsemen  he 
then  set  out  himself  for  Jezreel.  All  depended  upon  overpower- 
ing the  wounded  king  before  any  force  could  be  rallied  to  his 
support.  Joram  was  informed  by  the  watchman  of  the  approaching 
troop,  and  sent  out  to  know  what  it  meant.  But  the  messengers 
were  not  allowed  to  return.  Unwilling  to  believe  the  worst,  though 
evidently  suspecting  it,  the  king,  with  his  nephew  of  Judah,  drove 
out  to  meet  the  usurper.  They  met  him  near  the  vineyard  whose 
possession  had  been  fatal  to  Naboth.  Ascertaining  that  it  was  in- 
deed rebellion  which  they  had  to  meet,  the  two  kings  turned  to 
flee.  But  Jehu,  with  his  own  bow,  sent  an  arrow  into  the  heart  of 
his  sovereign.  The  king  of  Judah  turned  into  the  highway  which 
led  southward  to  En-gannim,  hoping  (if  he  had  any  definite  hope) 
to  escape  to  his  own  territory.  He  was  followed  by  some  of  the 
soldiers  and  wounded.  Finding  the  road  to  the  south  closed 
against  him,  he  turned  westward  to  Megiddo,  and  there  died.1 

Jehu  had  not  followed  Ahaziah,  but,  giving  command  to  his 
adjutant  to  throw  the  body  of  Joram  into  the  vineyard  of  Na- 
both, he  himself  proceeded  to  secure  the  palace.  Jezebel,  as 
queen-mother,  had  continued  to  rule  the  kingdom  after  the  death 
of  Ahab.  Her  death  was  even  more  necessary  than  the  death  of 
her  son.  She  was  not  ignorant  of  what  was  going  on  and  was 
doubtless  aware  that  the  hearts  of  the  people  were  estranged  from 
her.  Nothing  was  left  her  except  to  meet  death  as  a  queen  should 

1  "  Let  no  fugitive  go  out  of  the  city"  (2  Kings,  9  1S)  is  an  indication  that 
the  town,  or  at  least  a  part  of  it,  was  in  possession  of  the  Israelites. 

*This  account  assumes  that  Beth  Haggan,  of  2  Kings,  9",  is  identical 
with  En-gannim.  The  Ascent  of  Gur,  where  Ahaziah  was  overtaken,  has 
not  been  identified,  but  Ibleam,  near  which  it  is  placed,  lies  a  little  south 
of  Engannim. 


2OO  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

meet  it.  So  she  arrayed  herself  in  her  royal  robes,  and  from  a 
window  that  commanded  the  palace  gate,  saluted  the  entering 
enemy.  "  Hail,  thou  Zimri,  thou  assassin  !  "  was  the  cry  that 
uttered  all  her  scorn.  Jehu  could  only  reply  : l  "  Who  are  you, 
to  bandy  words  with  me  ?  "  Then,  as  he  saw  the  servants  near 
her,  he  commanded  them  to  pitch  her  headlong  from  the  win- 
dow. None  seemed  able  to  resist  his  will,  and  the  eunuchs  threw 
her  down.  Her  blood  spattered  the  wall,  and  her  body  was  man- 
gled by  the  hoofs  of  the  plunging  horses.  Such  was  the  end  of 
the  imperious  Jezebel,  daughter  of  kings,  wife  of  a  king,  mother 
of  kings.  Her  unscrupulous  acts  brought  destruction  upon  her- 
self and  upon  her  children,  but  we  can  hardly  refuse  our  tribute 
of  admiration  to  the  right  royal  way  in  which  she  met  her  fate. 

According  to  our  sources,  the  fulfilment  of  Elijah's  prophecies 
against  Jezebel  and  the  house  of  Ahab  was  strikingly  evident  to 
Jehu  himself.  The  new  king  probably  regarded  himself  as  the 
predestined  instrument  of  the  divine  vengeance,  having  been  pre- 
pared for  his  work  by  the  prophetic  preaching.  There  can  be 
no  doubt  that  he  took  himself  seriously  in  the  role  thus  assigned 
him.  At  his  instigation  the  male  members  of  the  house  of  Ahab 
were  mercilessly  slaughtered  at  Samaria.  The  princes  of  Judah 
who  were  within  his  reach  were  also  slain,  probably  because  of 
their  connexion  with  Ahab — the  two  houses  were  allied  by  mar- 
riage as  we  have  just  seen.  The  details  of  the  massacre  may  be 
read  in  the  Biblical  narrative.  Jehu's  relations  with  the  party  of 
Old  Israel  are  indicated  by  the  account  of  his  friendship  with 
Jonadab  ben  Rechab. 

The  suppression  of  the  worship  of  the  Tyrian  Baal  was  natu- 
rally one  of  the  first  steps  taken  by  Jehu.  One  account  describes 
the  stratagem  by  which  this  was  accomplished.  It  narrates  how 
Jehu  himself  pretended  to  be  a  worshipper  of  Baal,  and  pro- 
claimed a  great  feast  to  him  at  Samaria.  The  Temple  area  was 
filled  with  worshippers,  and  the  sacred  vestments  were  distributed 
to  them  all.  Jehu  offered  the  sacrifice  with  his  own  hands,  and 
then  the  executioners  were  turned  loose  on  the  defenceless  throng, 
and  cut  them  down  in  cold  blood  to  the  last  man.  The  sequel 
was  the  demolition  of  the  sanctuary  and  the  effective  desecration 
of  its  site.  The  account  can  hardly  be  taken  literally — it  is  a 
dramatic  idealisation  of  what  actually  took  place.  Jehu  could 
*a  Kings,  9  ".  Correct  the  text  with  Benzinger,  Handkommentar,  p.  152. 


THE   HOUSE   OF  JEHU  2OI 

not,  with  any  hope  of  success,  take  the  part  of  a  worshipper  of 
Baal.  He  was  known  as  the  organ  of  the  prophetic  party ;  he 
had  allied  himself  with  the  zealots  too  ostentatiously  to  play  the 
hypocrite  with  any  hope  of  success.  His  very  insistence  that 
Ahab  served  Baal  little,  but  Jehu  will  serve  him  much  would 
arouse  the  suspicions  of  the  Baal  party.  But,  though  we 
cannot  suppose  such  an  artifice  likely  to  be  successful,  we  must 
believe  that  Jehu  did  put  down  the  worship  fostered  by  Jezebel, 
and  that  he  put  it  down  with  a  strong  hand. 

Jehu  is  mentioned  by  the  Assyrian  king,  Shalmaneser  II,  as 
paying  him  tribute,  along  with  the  Tyrians  and  Sidonians.  The 
Israelite  king  is  called  Son  of  Omri,  which  indicates  that  the  rev- 
olution had  not  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  court  of  Nineveh. 
This  can  hardly  excite  wonder  in  view  of  Israel's  remoteness  and 
insignificance.  It  is,  perhaps,  noteworthy  that  the  tribute  is 
spoken  of  in  connexion  with  the  invasion  of  Damascus,  then 
under  the  rule  of  Hazael.  The  Assyrians  claim  to  have  defeated 
the  opposing  army  at  Saniru,  in  the  Lebanon,1  and  to  have  shut 
Hazael  in  Damascus,  whose  environs  they  laid  waste.  From  the 
fact  that  they  did  not  take  the  capital  we  may  conclude  that  the 
expedition  was  only  partially  successful.  The  tribute  sent  by 
Jehu  may  have  been  intended  to  secure  Assyrian  help  against 
Hazael.  In  any  case  it  created  a  dangerous  precedent.  The 
Assyrian  king  would  regard  it  as  a  recognition  of  his  overlordship. 
We  may  hold,  also,  that  it  was  ineffectual  in  obtaining  the  help 
needed.  Hazael  was  able  to  preserve  his  capital,  and  as  soon  as 
the  Assyrian  army  was  recalled,  his  hands  were  free  to  take  ven- 
geance upon  his  neighbours,  and  to  recoup  his  losses  by  plundering 
their  territory.  From  this  point  of  view  we  may  interpret  the  dec- 
laration of  the  Hebrew  historian:  "In  those  days  Yahweh  began 
to  rage  against  Israel,  and  Hazael  smote  them — all  the  borders 
of  Israel."  The  prophetic  legend  also  throws  light  upon  this 
period,  when  it  makes  Hazael  a  truculent  enemy  of  Israel,  who 
burned  their  fortresses,  slew  their  young  men,  dashed  the  children 
against  the  wall,  and  ripped  up  the  pregnant  women.1  Amos 

1  The  name  reminds  us  of  Senir,  one  of  the  names  for  Hermon,  Dt.  3*,  or 
some  part  of  the  Antilebanon,  I  Chr.  5**,  Ezek.  2J&,  Cant.  4*.  The  As- 
syrian account  is  given  in  Keilinschr.  Bibliothtk,  I,  pp.  141-143. 

*The  detailed  prediction  of  Hazael's  crue'.ty  is  put  into  the  mouth  of  Elisha, 
3  Kings,  811.  The  verse  quoted  above  about  Yahweh's  rage  is  2  Kings,  10" 


202  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

looks  back  on  this  time  of  guerilla  warfare  when  he  denounces 
Damascus  for  threshing  Gilead  with  iron  threshing-sledges.  The 
misery  in  Israel  must  have  been  extreme. 

The  mention  of  Jehu  in  the  Assyrian  inscriptions  brings  to  our 
notice  the  chronological  difficulties  of  the  Hebrew  record.  Shal- 
maneser  dates  the  battle  of  Karkar,  at  which  Ahab  was  present, 
in  the  sixth  year  of  his  reign,  and  he  received  the  tribute  of  Jehu 
in  the  eighteenth.  Within  the  interval  of  twelve  years  we  must 
find  room  for  the  two  reigns  between  Ahab  and  Jehu.  The  Bibli- 
cal data  for  these  two  reigns  sum  up  fourteen  years.  The  contra- 
diction is  obvious.  On  the  theory  that  the  Hebrew  author 
counted  fractions  of  years  as  full  years,  we  might  suppose  that 
Ahaziah's  two  years  only  completed  the  year  of  his  father's  death 
and  began  the  next,  in  which  case  his  accession  would  fall  in  the 
year  853  B.C.  But  it  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  the  campaign 
of  Ramoth  Gilead,  in  which  Ahab  lost  his  life,  took  place  the 
same  year  with  the  severe  losses  of  the  battle  of  Karkar.  In  any 
case,  the  tribute  of  Jehu  must  have  been  sent  soon  after  his  acces- 
sion. The  year  of  his  revolt  would,  therefore,  be  the  year  in 
which  Shalmaneser  mentions  the  tribute — 842  B.C.1  This  may 
be  regarded  as  the  earliest  date  that  we  can  fix  with  any  consid- 
erable certainty  in  the  history  of  Israel.  From  here  we  can  reckon 
backward  to  the  death  of  Solomon,  which  would  occur  about  930, 
and  the  accession  of  David  would  fall  not  far  from  the  year  1000 
B.C.  But,  until  new  sources  are  open  to  us,  these  figures  can  be 
only  approximate.1 

(emended  text).  To  understand  Amos'  language  (Amos,  I  s)  we  must  remem- 
ber that  the  oriental  threshing-sledge  grinds  the  straw  to  bits,  cf.  Is.  41  !i. 

*The  inaccuracy  of  the  Biblical  numbers  becomes  more  glaring,  if  we  sup- 
pose, with  Cheyne  (Encycl.  Bibl.,  I,  p.  92),  that  the  defeat  at  Karkar  fell  in 
the  three  years'  peace  between  Syria  and  Israel.  On  the  whole  subject  the 
reader  may  consult  the  articles  on  "Chronology"  in  Hastings'  Dictionary 
of  the  Bible,  and  in  the  Encycl.  Biblica. 

1  Some  sarcasm  has  been  expended  upon  the  scholars  who  are  so  anxious 
to  convict  the  Biblical  authors  of  error,  while  accepting  the  Assyrian  state- 
ments without  reserve.  The  case  is  very  simple;  the  Assyrians  had  a  regu- 
lated chronology  and  dated  their  documents  by  it.  The  Hebrews  did  not 
have  such  a  chronology,  and  the  data  which  have  comedown  to  us  are  incon- 
sistent with  each  other,  as  well  as  with  what  we  know  from  other  sources. 
The  most  persistent  attempts  to  defend  the  authenticity  of  the  numbers  in  the 
books  of  Kings  always  end  in  hypotheses  of  textual  corruption,  or  of  omitted 
data — interregna  or  co-reigns — for  which  the  text  gives  no  warrant. 


THE   HOUSE   OF  JEHU  203 

In  the  southern  kingdom  we  find  an  interesting  parallel  to  the 
rebellion  of  Jehu  in  the  usurpation  of  Athaliah.  This  daughter 
of  Ahab  and  Jezebel  was  now  queen-mother,  and  therefore  the 
most  powerful  person  in  the  palace  next  to  her  son  Ahaziah. 
Ahaziah,  as  we  have  seen,  was  murdered  because  of  his  relation- 
ship with  Joram  whom  he  was  visiting  in  Jezreel.  Other  mem- 
bers of  the  royal  family  were  visiting  their  cousins  in  Samaria 
and  were  included  in  the  massacre  that  overtook  the  house  of 
Ahab.1  We  do  not  know  who  had  the  next  right  to  the  throne 
of  Judah.  But  we  do  know  that  his  accession  would  have  super- 
seded the  queen-mother,  for  to  guard  against  losing  her  place 
she  resolved  on  a  step  worthy  of  the  daughter  of  Jezebel.  So  far 
as  was  in  her  power  she  completed  the  extermination  of  the  house 
of  David,  and  in  default  of  any  other  claimant,  herself  ascended 
the  throne.  For  six  years  she  presented  to  Judah  the  unusual 
spectacle  of  a  woman  wielding  the  supreme  power. 

The  fall  of  the  woman  was  made  possible  by  the  foresight  of  a 
woman.  Jehosheba,  sister  of  the  late  king  (but  hardly  a  daughter 
of  Athaliah,  we  may  suppose),  saved  her  nephew  Jehoash  from 
the  fate  of  his  uncles,  brothers,  and  cousins.  Her  ability  to  pro- 
tect him  was  given  by  the  fact  that  she  was  wife  of  Jehoiada,  the 
priest  who  had  charge  of  the  Temple.  With  her  husband  she 
seems  to  have  had  apartments  within  the  sacred  enclosure.  Here 
the  lad  found  an  asylum  until  such  time  as  he  might  be  pro- 
claimed king.  The  priest  thought  it  unsafe  to  wait  longer  than 
six  years,  at  the  expiration  of  which  time  the  boy  king  was  only 
seven  years  of  age. 

Jehoiada' s  dependence  was  on  the  royal  body-guard.  As  we 
have  already  noticed,  the  Temple  was  in  a  separate  court  imme- 
diately adjoining  the  royal  residence  and  was  a  part  of  the  same 
group  of  buildings  with  it.  The  body-guard  was  organised  in 
three  divisions,  an  arrangement  as  old  as  the  time  of  David. 
The  standing  order  was  that  on  week  days  two  companies  should 
be  on  duty  in  the  palace  and  one  in  the  Temple,  but  that  on  the 
Sabbath,  when  the  Temple  was  most  frequented,  the  proportion 
should  be  reversed.  Moreover,  on  that  day  the  posts  were 
shifted ;  the  company  that  had  been  on  duty  at  the  Temple  then 
took  its  station  at  the  palace.  Jehoiada  having  found  means  to 
«ecure  the  support  of  the  officers,  arranged  that,  on  the  particular 
1  They  were  forty-two  in  number  according  to  2  Kings,  10'*. 


204  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

Sabbath  which  he  fixed  upon,  the  soldiers  already  in  the  Temple 
should  be  detained  beyond  the  usual  hour.  The  consequence 
was  that  on  the  arrival  of  the  other  two  companies  from  the  pal- 
ace, the  whole  band  was  united  at  the  Temple,  and  the  palace 
was  left  wholly  without  a  guard.  When  this  was  accomplished, 
the  young  king  was  brought  out,  anointed,  and  crowned.1  The 
soldiers  greeted  him  with  acclamations,  and  taking  him  in  the 
midst  they  marched  to  the  palace.  The  death  of  the  queen  was 
the  logical  sequel. 

We  have  no  means  of  knowing  how  far  religious  motives  were 
active  in  this  counter-revolution.  It  would  be  rather  strange  if 
religious  motives  were  not  active  in  it.  The  daughter  of  Jezebel 
may  be  suspected  of  being  an  innovator  like  her  mother.  In  this 
case  the  hands  of  Jehoiada  were  strengthened  by  the  conserva- 
tives. But  on  the  face  of  it  the  account  shows  only  an  ordinary 
palace  revolution.  The  statements  concerning  the  destruction 
of  a  temple  of  Baal,  and  concerning  a  covenant  with  Yahweh 
entered  into  by  the  king  and  people,  are  later  insertions  into  the 
text.' 

The  lad  upon  whom  greatness  was  thus  thrust  had  a  lively 
sense  of  gratitude  toward  his  guardian,  and  we  may  well  suppose 
that  Jehoiada  was  the  virtual  ruler  for  many  years.  The  paucity 
of  our  information  concerning  matters  of  state,  however,  con- 
tinues throughout  this  period.  All  that  the  historian  has  thought 
worthy  of  preservation  is  an  extract  from  the  Temple  history. 
This  extract  relates  a  dispute  concerning  the  priests'  responsibil- 
ity for  the  repair  of  the  sanctuary.  The  matter  is  not  entirely 
clear  to  us,  but  we  may  imagine  something  as  follows :  The 
Temple  was  the  royal  chapel.  At  first  the  Temple  treasure  was 
part  of  the  king's  property ;  the  income  from  gifts  and  fines  be- 
longed to  the  monarch.  When  this  was  the  case  the  priests,  as 
royal  officers,  received  their  support  from  the  palace.  But  the  area 
of  perquisite  is  constantly  extending.  The  priests  would  easily 
claim  that  the  offerings  should  belong  to  them  as  persons  specially 

1  According  to  a  plausible  emendation  of  the  text,  he  also  received  the 
royal  bracelet — such  we  find  among  the  insignia  of  Saul.  On  the  composite 
nature  of  the  account,  2  Kings,  1 1  4-20,  see  the  commentaries  of  Kittel  and 
Benzinger. 

'This  is  pointed  out  byStade,  Zeitsch.  f.  d.  A  litest  Wissensek.V,  p.  283,  f., 
and  admitted  by  Kittel,  though  he  thinks  the  difference  of  age  not  very  great. 


THE   HOUSE  OF  JEHU  2O$ 

consecrated.  Logically  the  fines  which  were  imposed  for  neg- 
lected religious  duties  would  follow  the  same  course.  If  the 
animal  that  was  vowed  to  the  sanctuary  belonged  to  the  priests, 
the  money  which  was  received  as  its  equivalent  would  equally 
belong  to  them.  By  the  time  of  Jehoash  a  custom  had  become 
established  which  gave  the  priests  a  right  to  all  these  sources  of 
income.  At  the  same  time,  the  priests  felt  no  responsibility  for 
the  repair  of  the  sanctuary — that  belonged  to  the  king.  Jehoash 
was  willing  explicitly  to  sanction  the  custom,  but  in  return  for 
the  legitimation  he  sought  to  lay  some  responsibility  on  the  party 
benefited.  He  allowed  the  priests  to  receive  "  the  money  of  the 
sacred  things,"  but  stipulated  that  they  should  keep  the  House 
in  repair. 

The  result  was  what  we  might  expect.  The  priests  were  willing 
to  receive  the  money  as  their  right,  but  the  duty  of  repairing  the 
house  was  still  regarded  by  them  as  devolving  on  the  royal  treas- 
ury. After  some  friction  between  the  two  parties,  a  new  arrange- 
ment was  made.  The  money  which  was  exacted  in  connexion 
with  the  trespass  offerings  and  sin  offerings  was  given  to  the 
priests  without  drawback.  For  what  else  came  into  the  Temple 
treasury  a  special  chest  was  provided.  When  a  considerable 
amount  had  accumulated,  the  king's  chancellor  came  and  counted 
it,  and  provided  for  the  repairs  in  question.  This  is  not  the  only 
time  that  laymen  have  shown  greater  zeal  and  fidelity  in  sacred 
things  than  have  the  men  to  whom  the  responsibility  would  more 
naturally  belong.  As  it  was  the  twenty-third  year  of  Jehoash 
when  the  neglected  state  of  the  Temple  caused  this  discussion, 
its  lack  of  repair  can  hardly  be  laid  to  the  charge  of  Athaliah.1 

The  incident  shows  that  Jehoash  was  able  to  release  himself 
from  his  subserviency  to  Jehoiada.  It  shows  also  a  tendency, 
which  became  more  marked  as  time  went  on — the  tendency  of  the 
Temple  officers  to  organise  as  a  close  corporation,  which  should 
have  revenues  and  privileges  of  its  own.  The  rest  of  the  acts  of 
Jehoash  are  left  unrecorded,  except  the  forced  contribution  which 
he  made  to  Hazael,  king  of  Damascus.  The  Syrian  was  now  at 
the  height  of  his  power.  Shalmaneser  had  again  invaded  his 
territory,  but  without  effectively  weakening  his  resources.*  Since 

1 1  Kings,  12  *-". 

1  In  his  twenty-first  year  he  claims  to  have  taken  four  cities  from  Hazael, 
Keilinsch.  Bibliothek,  I,  p.  143. 


206  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

this  time  Shalmaneser  had  been  kept  at  home  by  a  rebellion 
there.  His  son  Shamsiramman  had  to  meet  a  general  revolt  of 
the  provinces,  and  to  reconquer  a  large  part  of  his  empire.  It 
was  not  till  the  reign  of  the  next  king,  Ramman-nirari  III, 
that  Damascus  suffered  from  the  Assyrian  attack.  Hazael  had 
practically  a  free  hand  during  his  whole  life,  and  he  made 
use  of  his  opportunity  by  pressing  Israel  to  the  wall.  Even 
Judah  was  at  his  mercy,  as  is  indicated  by  what  has  already 
been  said.1 

Turning  now  to  the  northern  kingdom,  we  see  the  situation  as 
it  had  been  in  the  time  of  Jehu  becoming  worse  under  his  son 
Jehoahaz.  ' '  The  wrath  of  Yahweh  was  hot  against  Israel,  and 
he  gave  them  into  the  hand  of  Hazael,  king  of  Syria,  and  into 
the  hand  of  Benhadad,  his  son."  '  After  an  interpolation  we 
read  that  the  Syrian  "left  to  Jehoahaz  only  fifty  horsemen, 
and  ten  chariots,  and  ten  thousand  footmen ;  for  the  king  of 
Syria  had  destroyed  them  and  made  them  like  dust  of  the 
threshing."  For  the  time  being  the  triumph  of  Damascus  was 
complete. 

The  leaf  was  soon  turned,  but  Jehoash  did  not  live  to  see  it. 
He  was  slain  by  a  conspiracy  of  his  officers.  Just  before  his 
death  another  Jehoash  had  come  to  the  throne  in  Samaria,  and 
he  was  permitted  to  see  some  relief.  The  prophetic  legend  sets 
this  before  us  in  its  anecdote  of  the  end  of  Elisha.  The  aged 
prophet  was  on  his  death- bed  when  he  was  visited  by  the  young 
king,  who  regarded  him  as  the  "  chariot  of  Israel  and  its  horse- 
men." *  The  ruling  passion  roused  the  dying  man,  and  he  in- 
structed the  king  to  shoot  an  arrow  out  of  the  window  toward 
Damascus— -a  type  and  promise  of  the  deliverance  to  come. 
Three  victories  were  promised,  and  it  is  intimated  that  more 
might  have  been  gained  had  only  the  king  shown  sufficient  zeal  in 
the  cause  of  freedom.  Damascus,  in  fact,  had  its  hands  full  in 

1  2  Kings,  12 18  '.  If  Hazael  was  able  to  carry  his  arms  successfully  as  far 
as  Gath,  and  even  to  threaten  Jerusalem,  his  power  was  greater  than  that  of 
any  of  his  predecessors. 

*2  Kings,  13*.  This  Benhadad  must  be  the  king  called  Mari  (Lord)  in 
the  Assyrian  inscriptions ;  according  to  these,  he  was  obliged  to  pay  an 
enormous  tribute  to  Assyria;  Keilinsch.  Bibliothek,  I,  p.  191. 

1  "One blast  upon  his  bugle-horn  was  worth  ten  thousand  men"  is  the 
modern  equivalent  for  this  saying.  We  can  readily  suppose  that  Elisha  had 
been  the  encourager  of  the  royal  house  in  the  time  of  calamity. 


THE  HOUSE  OF  JEHU  2O/ 

another  direction.  Ramman-nirari  was  ready  to  enforce  the 
slumbering  Assyrian  claims  on  the  whole  Mediterranean  district. 
He  invaded  the  west  with  an  irresistible  force.  He  boasts  of 
bringing  to  his  feet  Tyre,  Sidon,  the  land  of  Otnri,  Edom,  Phi- 
listia — "  the  west  land  in  all  its  extent."  The  special  object  of 
the  expedition  was  Damascus,  which  had  long-standing  arrears. 
The  city  preferred  not  to  risk  a  siege,  and  opened  its  gates  to  the 
invader.  It  was  spared  the  horrors  of  sack,  but  its  resources  must 
have  been  heavily  taxed  to  pay  the  tribute  exacted.1  The  king- 
dom of  Israel  also  paid  tribute,  but  received  an  equivalent  in  the 
humiliation  of  its  hereditary  enemy.  We  may  suppose  that  at 
this  time  Jehoash  obtained  the  three  promised  victories,  and  re- 
covered some  of  the  cities  which  Israel  had  lost.  That  he  was 
able  to  restore  the  ancient  boundaries  of  his  kingdom  is  not  in- 
dicated by  the  narrative. 

The  relations  of  the  two  Israelite  kingdoms  at  this  date  are 
vividly  portrayed  in  the  incident  next  narrated  by  the  book  of 
Kings.  Jehoash  of  Judah  had  been  succeeded  by  Amaziah,  his 
son,  an  energetic  prince  who  carried  war  into  Edom.  This  prince 
took  an  important  fortress  called  the  Rock,  which  has  sometimes 
been  identified  with  Petra  the  capital — but  this  can  hardly  be  cor- 
rect.1 Elated  by  his  success  the  king  sent  a  challenge  to  Jehoash 
of  Israel.  Cause  of  war  there  seems  to  have  been  none,  unless 
Israel  claimed  the  suzerainty  over  Judah.*  The  good-natured 
contempt  of  Jehoash  is  indicated  by  his  reply:  "The  thistle 
sent  to  the  cedar  saying  :  Give  thy  daughter  to  my  son  to 
wife;  but  a  wild  beast  trod  down  the  thistle."  Such  an  an- 
swer was  little  calculated  to  preserve  the  peace.  The  two  little 
kingdoms  went  to  war,  and  the  result  justified  the  pride  of  Jeho- 
ash. Amaziah  was  defeated,  and  himself  fell  into  the  hands  of 
the  enemy.  Either  to  give  an  example  or  to  discourage  asser- 
tions of  independence,  the  victor  broke  down  the  wall  of  Jerusa- 

1  The  king  specifies  2,300  talents  of  silver,  20  talents  of  gold,  3,000  talents 
of  copper,  5,000  of  iron,  besides  stuffs,  ivory  furniture,  and  other  property. 
Keilinseh.  Bibliothtk,  I,  p.  191. 

*  The  rock  of  Kadesh  has  more  claims,  and  is  advocated  by  Cheyne.  Edom 
had  revolted  from  Judah  in  the  time  of  Jehoram,  as  we  saw  above. 

1  The  non-mention  of  Judah  among  the  tributaries  of  Assyria  when  the 
more  remote  Edom  is  included  in  the  list,  would  indicate  that  Judah  was 
included  in  Israel.  In  this  case  Jehoash  was  making  an  effort  for  inde- 
pendence. 


208  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

lem  and  looted  the  Temple  and  palace.  Hostages  also  were  de- 
manded and  granted,  and  carried  back  into  Samaria.1 

The  increasing  prosperity  of  Israel  continued  into  the  next 
reign — that  of  Jeroboam  II.  The  Hebrew  historian  gives  only 
a  brief  statement,  but  one  that  is  sufficiently  positive:  "  He  re- 
stored the  territory  of  Israel  from  the  Entrance  of  Hamath  to  the 
Sea  of  the  Arabah."  *  If  this  be  so,  and  if  Judah  were  really 
tributary  to  Israel,  Jeroboam  had  possession  of  the  whole  extent 
of  Canaan.  The  continued  debility  of  Damascus  allowed  Jero- 
boam thus  to  extend  his  rule,  though  we  must  accuse  the  Hebrew 
writer  of  exaggeration  when  he  gives  him  possession  both  of  Da- 
mascus and  of  Hamath.1 

The  forty-one  years  of  Jeroboam's  reign  are  dismissed  in  seven 
verses  of  the  Hebrew  historian's  text ;  of  which  four  are  taken  up 
with  the  standing  formulae  which  are  used  at  the  beginning  and 
end  of  each  reign.  The  writer's  lack  of  interest  in  what  we  call 
history  could  not  be  more  conspicuously  shown.  All  that  we 
have  is  the  bare  mention  of  Jeroboam's  success  in  war.  Yet 
this  success  must  have  been  purchased  by  a  long  and  bloody  con- 
flict, marked  by  many  stirring  incidents  such  as  the  memory  of 
Israel  would  cherish  with  pride  or  pathos.  If  a  plausible  inter- 
pretation of  a  verse  in  Amos  may  be  trusted,  the  inhabitants  of 
Samaria  were  ready  to  boast  of  their  success  in  the  capture  of 
Lodebar  and  Karnaim  from  the  Syrian  enemy.*  Whatever  fur- 
ther exploits  of  this  kind  there  may  have  been  are  lost  to  us  for- 
ever. The  internal  condition  of  the  kingdom,  however,  has  a 
strong  light  thrown  upon  it  by  the  book  of  the  prophet  Amos. 
This  remarkable  man  deserves  our  careful  attention. 

It  has  already  been  shown  that  a  prophetic  party  in  opposition 

'The  history  of  Amaziah  (2  Kings,  14  •-")  also  mentions  as  a  remarkable 
fact,  that  he  did  not  slay  the  children  of  his  father's  assassins  for  the  crime 
of  their  fathers.  The  story  of  the  contest  with  Jehoash  seems  to  come  from 
a  source  unfriendly  to  Amaziah. 

1  2  Kings,  14 14.  The  Entrance  of  Hamath  was  some  town  or  fortress  in 
the  mouth  of  the  valley  which  divides  the  two  Lebanon  ranges.  The  Sea  of 
the  Arabah  is,  of  course,  the  Dead  Sea. 

1  2  Kings,  14 w.  The  verse  is  a  part  of  the  redactor's  work,  and  as  it 
stands  is  disfigured  by  an  unintelligible  reference  to  Judah. 

*Amos,  6  1J :  "Who  rejoice  over  Lodebar  and  who  say:  Have  we  not 
taken  Karnaim  by  our  own  strength  ?  "—the  translation  is  attributed  to 
Gratz  by  Wellhausen,  Skitzen  und  Vorarbeiten,  V,  p.  86.  Lodebar  and 
Karnaim  were  towns  in  Gilead. 


THE  HOUSE  OF  JEHU 

to  the  house  of  Omri  had  been  led  by  Elijah  and  afterward  by 
Elisha.  Their  policy  had  been  to  overthrow  the  worship  of  the 
Tyrian  Baal  and  to  purge  the  religion  of  Yahweh  of  Canaanitish 
elements.  Their  success  in  putting  Jehu  upon  the  throne  had 
only  revealed  the  need  of  other  reforms.  Reflecting  men,  more- 
over, had  learned  that  the  cause  of  true  religion  was  very  little 
advanced  by  political  measures.  There  were  those  who  already 
hoped  that  the  pen  would  prove  mightier  than  the  sword.  A 
considerable  literary  activity  developed  in  both  kingdoms  during 
the  reign  of  Jehu  and  his  successors.  A  part  of  this  activity,  if 
we  may  judge  from  the  fragments  that  have  come  down  to  us, 
aimed  to  lead  the  thoughts  of  the  people  toward  religious  purifi- 
cation and  improvement. 

We  may  put  here  the  memoirs  of  Elijah  himself.  For  it  could 
not  have  been  long  after  his  death  that  his  admirers  put  their 
opinions  of  him  into  written  form.  The  legendary  exaggerations 
of  the  narrative  are  precisely  such  as  attach  themselves  to  the 
life-story  of  a  saint  within  a  very  few  years  after  his  death.  The 
extravagant  esteem  in  which  the  man  of  God  is  held  in  the  East 
is  here  painted  to  the  life.  We  see  the  hero  able  to  announce 
the  famine  predetermined  by  Yahweh,  and  himself  miraculously 
nourished  during  its  continuance.  At  his  prayer  the  dead  son  of 
his  hostess  is  restored  to  life.  With  the  courage  of  one  who 
knows  his  God  to  be  with  him,  he  faces  the  king  who  has  vowed 
his  destruction.  Single-handed  he  stands  against  the  prophets  of 
Baal  and  brings  them  to  confusion  by  the  fire  which  consumes 
his  sacrifice.  At  the  close  of  his  life  he  is  miraculously  carried 
away  by  a  fiery  chariot,  doubtless  to  enjoy  the  pleasures  of  the 
paradise  of  God.1  In  all  this  we  discover  a  book  of  edification, 
designed  to  commend  to  the  people  the  cause  of  which  Elijah  was 
the  champion.  The  biography  of  Elisha  is  so  similar  that  we 
must  suppose  it  to  have  taken  shape  at  about  the  same  time. 

Far  less  political  bias  is  shown  by  the  poem  which  has  come 
down  to  us  under  the  title  of  The  Blessing  of  Moses.1  Here  we 
see  a  lover  of  Israel  describing  the  different  tribes;  praying  that 
Judah  may  be  brought  into  political  unity  with  his  brethren, 
praising  the  priestly  prerogatives  of  Levi,  breaking  out  into  rap- 

1  The  life  of  Elijah  and  Elisha  is  one  of  the  chief  sources  for  the  book  of 
Kings,  i  Kings,  17-19,  21;   2  Kings,  1-9. 
*  Inserted  in  Deuteronomy  as  Chapter  33. 


2IO  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

tures  over  the  fruitfulness  of  Joseph.  The  satisfaction  of  the 
poem  with  the  present  situation  of  Israel  is  in  accord  with  the 
popular  sentiment  of  the  times.  The  author  is  not  conscious  of 
any  breach  between  Israel  and  Yahweh,  and  assumes  that  the 
people  are  sure  of  the  help  of  their  God  for  all  time  to  come. 
The  confidence  which  is  here  expressed  in  noble  form,  was  the 
very  confidence  that  Amos  was  compelled  to  denounce. 

In  this  period  also  we  may  place  that  elaboration  of  ancestral 
tradition  which  we  call  the  Yahwistic  element  of  the  Penta- 
teuch1 (J).  The  writer  collects  the  scattered  stories  of  the  cre- 
ation, the  deluge,  the  patriarchs  and  the  exodus,  and  rewrites 
them  in  a  connected  narrative.  His  object,  no  doubt,  is  both 
literary  and  religious — he  delights  in  putting  the  story  into  form 
for  its  own  sake,  but  he  is  also  anxious  to  teach  a  lesson.  That 
lesson  is  the  power  of  Yahweh  and  the  favour  which  He  has  con- 
tinually shown  to  Israel.  Yahweh  is  the  Creator  of  the  land  of 
Canaan.  It  is  He  who  has  been  worshipped  from  the  time  of 
Enoch.  It  is  He  who  promised  Abraham  possession  of  the  land, 
and  to  whom  Abraham  erected  altars  in  his  sojourning.  The 
ancient  sanctuaries  are  dwelt  upon  with  loving  interest  as  places 
consecrated  by  the  Patriarchs.  The  sojourn  in  Egypt  and  the 
exodus  are  made  to  give  renewed  evidence  of  Yahweh's  favour. 
The  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter  seems  to  be:  Fear  Yahweh 
and  keep  His  commandments.  By  thus  showing  the  people  the 
reasons  for  their  worship,  the  author  hopes  to  persuade  them  to 
that  fidelity  which  Elijah  would  enforce  by  sterner  measures. 

What  the  author  means  by  the  service  of  Yahweh  is  revealed  to 
us  by  his  Decalogue,  which  we  have  already  quoted.1  This  dec- 
alogue is  essentially  ritual.  It  forbids  the  making  of  molten  gods, 
in  which  prohibition  we  may  see  the  beginning  of  a  reaction 
against  the  bulls  of  Jeroboam  I.  It  commands  the  observance  of 
the  religious  festivals,  which  are  also  the  agricultural  festivals. 
The  firstlings  and  first  fruits  are  to  belong  to  Yahweh.  Leav- 
ened bread  is  not  to  be  brought  to  the  altar,  and  the  supersti- 
tious rite  of  boiling  a  kid  with  its  mother's  milk  is  prohibited. 

1  Cf.  what  was  said  above,  pp.  12-15,  4I~45-  The  book  of  J,  like  almost 
all  Hebrew  literature,  went  through  various  editions  before  being  united  with 
E.  I  assume  that  it  was  substantially  complete  in  the  present  period,  some 
little  time  before  Amos. 

'Above  p.  68  f.     The  text  of  the  Decalogue  is  taken  from  Ex.  34. 


THE  HOUSE  OF  JEHU  211 

On  the  ground  of  such  observances  Yahweh  made  His  covenant 
with  Israel,  and  we  can  hardly  help  feeling  that  this  author,  with 
all  his  religious  earnestness,  encouraged  the  blindness  against 
which  Amos  made  such  an  energetic  protest.  Conscious  opposi- 
tion to  the  popular  religion  can  scarcely  be  attributed  to  J. 

Very  different  was  Amos :  He  was  not  a  literary  man,  though 
his  book  begins  a  new  stage  in  the  literature  of  Israel.  He  was 
a  prophet — not  one  of  the  professed  prophets,  members  of  the 
guilds,  but  a  man  on  fire  with  a  message.  A  native  of  Judah, 
and  a  herdsman  by  occupation,  he  had  felt  the  divine  impulse, 
and  left  his  herds  and  home  to  preach  to  Israel.  The  burden  of 
his  message  was  impending  calamity.  He  saw  that  the  long- 
suffering  of  Yahweh  was  exhausted.  Twice  had  the  judgment 
seemed  about  to  fall,  and  twice  it  had  been  mercifully  restrained. 
But  now,  this  third  time,  Yahweh  was  testing  Israel  as  one  tests 
a  wall  with  the  plumb-line.  The  result  could  not  be  doubtful — 
Israel  fell  so  far  short  of  the  requirements  that  judgment  was  sure 
to  come  :  "  The  high  places  of  Isaac  shall  be  destroyed,  and  the 
sanctuaries  of  Israel  shall  be  laid  waste,  and  I  will  stand  against 
the  house  of  Jeroboam  with  the  sword."  * 

With  such  a  message,  the  prophet  appeared  at  the  ancient 
sanctuary  of  Bethel.  The  time  was  probably  one  of  the  stated 
festivals  when  the  people  were  assembled  in  numbers.  The  presi- 
ding priest,  as  we  should  expect,  saw  treason  in  the  denunciation 
of  the  reigning  monarch.  The  activity  of  the  prophetic  order 
against  the  house  of  Omri  was  not  forgotten.  The  royal  official 
saw  in  Amos  one  of  the  wandering  dervishes  who  went  through 
the  land  raving  out  incoherent  messages,  expecting  to  receive  his 
support  at  the  hands  of  pious  or  superstitious  citizens.  He  there- 
fore gave  information  to  the  king,  at  the  same  time  warning 
Amos  that  he  would  better  ply  his  trade  in  Judah.  But  the 
preacher  denies  that  he  is  a  prophet  by  trade.  All  his  life  he  had 
been  a  herdsman  and  a  gatherer  of  sycamore  figs.  Just  now  he 
has  a  message  from  Yahweh — "  when  the  lion  roars  who  will  not 
fear,  when  Yahweh  speaks  who  will  not  prophesy?"  Yahweh 

'Amos,  7*.  It  seems  not  too  daring  to  assume  that  this  vision  of  the  lo- 
custs, the  fire,  and  the  plummet  was  the  opening  of  Amos's  activity.  The 
parallel  cases  of  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and  Ezekiel  make  this  probable,  and 
there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  discourses  were  written  down  in  the 
order  of  their  delivery. 


212  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

had  spoken,  and  the  content  of  his  message  was  :    "  Israel  is  ripe 
for  destruction."  * 

So  much  information  is  given  us  by  the  prophet  concerning 
himself.  His  book  makes  the  impression  of  an  activity  extended 
over  some  time.  We  have  reason  to  be  grateful  that  he  put  the 
outline  of  his  discourses  into  written  form.  The  message  he  has 
recorded  is  a  very  simple  one.  It  may  be  summed  up  in  the 
words  :  Israel  is  to  be  destroyed  for  its  disobedience  to  Yahweh. 
And  we  are  not  left  in  doubt  as  to  the  method  of  destruction. 
War,  with  its  concomitant  horrors  of  pestilence  and  famine,  is  to 
come  upon  the  country.  The  cities  are  to  be  sacked,  the  men 
are  to  be  slain,  the  women  and  children  are  to  go  into  captivity. 
As  we  may  judge  from  what  we  have  seen  of  literature  in  the  pe- 
riod, this  was  a  new  sort  of  preaching  to  be  delivered  in  the  name 
of  Yahweh.  The  people  at  large  identified  the  cause  of  Yahweh 
and  the  cause  of  Israel.  They  could  not  conceive  that  He  would 
deliver  His  people  over  to  the  enemy — what  would  become  of 
Yahweh  Himself?  This  is  the  question  which  the  astonished 
hearers  would  put  to  the  preacher. 

The  wrath  of  Yahweh  was  not,  indeed,  an  unknown  thing. 
At  different  times  in  the  past  He  had  been  offended  with  His 
people  ;  on  occasion  He  had,  for  a  while,  left  them  to  themselves, 
or  even  actively  taken  part  against  them.  They  had  suffered  de- 
feat, oppression,  visitations  of  various  kinds.  But  sooner  or  later 
He  had  been  appeased.  He  had  always  come  to  realise  that  they 
were  His  people ;  had  turned  to  them,  and  had  intervened  for 
their  deliverance.  Yahweh  was  a  man  of  war.  There  had  always 
been  a  Day  of  Yahweh  in  which  He  had  gone  out  at  the  head  of 
His  people,  and  had  smitten  their  enemies.  These  days  of  vic- 
tory were  only  precursors  of  a  still  greater  Day  of  Yahweh  in 
which  He  would  again,  and  finally,  vindicate  them  against  every 
opposer. 

This  was  the  substance  of  the  popular  theology.  It  was  evi- 
dently based  upon  the  covenant  relation  so  dear  to  the  current 
tradition.  It  interpreted  recent  history  in  the  light  of  this  tra- 
dition and  of  its  own  desires.  The  defeat  of  the  Syrians  and 
the  renewed  prosperity  of  Israel  were  acts  of  God,  evidences  that 

1  Amos,  8  * f.  The  vision  of  the  ripe  fruit  gives  us  one  of  those  plays  upon 
words  of  which  the  prophets  were  fond.  Amos  sees  a  basket  of  ripe  fruit 
(A'aif)  and  is  told  that  the  end  ( AV/ )  has  come  upon  Israel. 


THE   HOUSE   OF  JEHU 

He  was  favourable  to  His  land.  How  could  it  be  otherwise? 
He  Himself  partook  of  the  prosperity.  His  altars  were  now 
abundantly  provided  with  sacrifices.  The  great  festivals  were 
celebrated  more  lavishly  than  ever  before ;  the  fat  of  fed  beasts 
ascended  continually  to  His  grateful  nostrils;  tithes  and  free- 
will offerings  were  brought  generously  to  His  sanctuaries.  The 
people  could  not  conceive  of  anything  more  harmonious  than 
their  relation  to  their  God,  and  they  found  every  reason  to  hope 
in  His  continued  approbation. 

Against  this  whole  structure  of  confidence  Amos  threw  himself 
with  an  earnestness  that  may  be  called  desperate.  First  of  all, 
he  took  a  broader  view  of  Yahweh.  Yahweh  was  to  him  much 
more  than  the  God  of  Israel — He  was  the  God  of  the  nations. 
He  had,  indeed,  brought  Israel  from  Egypt,  but  He  had  also 
brought  the  Philistines  from  Caphtor,  and  the  Syrians  from  Kir. 
One  passage  goes  so  far  as  to  affirm  that  Nubians  and  Israelites 
were  alike  in  His  estimation.  Yet  this  seems  more  than  the  sober 
reflection  of  the  prophet  would  assert,  for  he  does,  in  fact,  recog- 
nise that  Israel's  relation  to  Yahweh  is  in  some  sense  peculiar. 
But  this  rather  increases  the  seriousness  of  the  situation.  Yah- 
weh's  choice  of  Israel  has  brought  upon  Israel  greater  responsi- 
bility :  "  You  only  have  I  known  of  all  the  families  of  the  earth, 
therefore  will  I  visit  upon  you  all  your  iniquities."  '  The  intimate 
relation  between  Yahweh  and  Israel  is  a  reason  why  He  should 
be  more  strict  with  them  ;  their  nearness  made  it  impossible  for 
Him  to  overlook  their  deficiencies. 

The  all-important  question,  therefore,  is  whether  Israel  has 
in  fact  obeyed  the  will  of  Yahweh.  To  this  question  Amos  an- 
swers with  an  unequivocal  No !  And  the  answer  is  based  upon 
two  propositions.  The  first  is  that  what  Yahweh  desires  is  not  the 
cultus.  It  is  irrelevant  to  the  question  between  Him  and  His 
people.  If  men  crowd  the  great  sanctuaries  bringing  their  offer- 
ings and  tithes;  if  they  sacrifice  their  thank-offerings  and  loudly 
invite  guests  to  partake  of  their  free-will  offerings,  it  is  because 
they  love  to  have  it  so — not  because  He  commands  it.  "I  hate, 
I  reject,  your  feasts,  and  I  find  no  fragrance  in  your  solemn  as- 
semblies;  when  you  bring  burnt-offerings  I  am  not  pleased,  and 
I  will  not  look  upon  your  rich  peace-offerings ;  remove  from  me 

1  Chapter  3*.     The  declaration  concerning  Philistines,  Syrians,  and  Nu 
is  found  in  9 T. 


214  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

the  noise  of  your  songs ;  I  do  not  listen  to  the  music  of  your 
harps. "  l  So  true  is  this  in  the  mind  of  the  prophet  that  he  does 
not  hesitate  to  appeal  to  history:  "  Was  it  sacrifices  and  offer- 
ings that  you  brought  me  in  the  Wilderness  forty  years,  O  House 
of  Israel  ?  ' '  The  emphatic  question  certainly  requires  a  nega- 
tive answer.1  It  shows  the  same  conception  of  history  which  we 
find  in  both  Hosea  and  Jeremiah,  according  to  which  the  wilder- 
ness wandering  was  a  time  when  no  sacrifices  were  brought.  And 
yet  it  was  a  time  of  undisturbed  affection  between  Yahweh  and 
His  people.  The  conclusion  is  plain — the  luxuriant  worship  on 
which  the  people  rely  as  their  security  can  have  no  real  effect 
upon  the  mind  of  Yahweh.  He  is  estranged,  and  if  there  is 
nothing  done  except  to  continue  the  elaborate  ritual  He  will 
remain  estranged  from  Israel. 

So  far  the  negative  side.  Now  comes  the  affirmation  of  the  real 
reason ;  the  anger  of  Yahweh  was  roused  because  of  the  moral  cor- 
ruption of  His  people.  Their  outward  prosperity  had  been  ap- 
propriated by  the  leaders,  and  had  not  been  allowed  to  reach  the 
common  people.  The  nobles  and  governors  had  no  regard  for 
their  poorer  brethren.  Oppression  and  extortion  were  the  order 
of  the  day.  The  wealthy  landowners  in  selling  the  necessities  of 
life,  exacted  the  utmost  that  the  traffic  would  bear.  The  middle- 
men cheated  both  in  the  measure  and  in  the  quality  of  the  grain. 
The  nobles  sold  justice  to  the  highest  bidder.  And  while  the 
poor  were  thus  ground  down,  the  rich  dissipated  their  lives  in 
feasting.  The  feasting  was,  to  be  sure,  carried  on  in  the  name  of 
religion.  But  it  was  none  the  better  for  that.  The  altar  by 
whose  side  the  upper  classes  drank  themselves  drunk,  could  exer- 
cise no  purifying  influence  on  such  worshippers.  The  very  gar- 
ments on  which  the  feasters  lay  witnessed  against  them,  for  they 
were  garments  of  the  poor,  taken  as  pledges  of  usurious  loans. 
The  worship  itself  was  infected — could  drunkenness,  gormandis- 
ing, fornication,  constitute  the  service  of  Yahweh  ? 

Most  fatal  of  all,  perhaps,  was  the  blindness  which  refused  to 
see  that  calamity  was  impending :  "  Woe  to  them  that  are  at 

1  Chapter  5  f  * f,  cf .  4  * '. 

'  I  am  aware  of  Professor  Macdonald's  ingenious  discussion  of  this  verse 
(5*).  Jmrn.  of  Bib.  Lit.  (1899),  p.  214  f.  But  I  still  think  the  above  the 
most  natural  translation.  The  next  following  verse  (5  ")  apparently  once 
contained  a  similar  question,  cf.  Schmidt,  ibid.  (1894),  pp.  1-15. 


THE  HOUSE  OF  JEHU  21$ 

ease  in  Zion,  and  secure  in  the  mountain  of  Samaria  .  .  . 
who  put  the  evil  day  far  away  and  yet  bring  near  the  regime  of 
violence ;  who  lie  on  couches  of  ivory,  and  stretch  themselves  on 
their  beds ;  who  eat  lambs  of  the  flock  and  calves  from  the  stall ; 
who  thrum  on  the  harp  and  improvise  songs  like  David ;  who 
drink  bumpers  of  wine  and  anoint  themselves  with  the  choicest 
perfume — but  they  are  not  grieved  at  the  impending  doom  of 
Joseph."*  To  arouse  the  people  thus  in  false  security  is  the  first 
duty  of  the  prophet. 

Amos' s  standard  of  right  and  wrong  is  not  applied  to  Israel 
alone.  This  is  strikingly  brought  out  by  the  first  discourse  in  the 
book — which  is  also  the  most  finished  specimen  of  his  oratory. 
From  it  we  learn  that  Yahweh  is  offended  by  the  sins  of  other 
nations,  and  that  they  are  to  suffer  as  well  as  Israel.  The  sins  of 
which  they  are  accused,  however,  are  not  sins  of  religion.  There 
is  no  accusation  of  idolatry  or  polytheism,  as  though  they  had 
apostatised  after  receiving  a  primitive  revelation  of  the  true  God. 
Their  crime  is  violation  of  the  common  dictates  of  humanity. 
Damascus  has  threshed  Gilead  with  iron  threshing-sledges,  grind- 
ing it  down  with  perpetual  warfare.  Gaza  has  engaged  in  the 
slave  trade,  selling  men  in  herds  to  the  Arabian  markets.  Am- 
mon  has  ripped  up  the  pregnant  women  of  Gilead  in  the  wanton 
cruelty  of  its  raids,  and  in  the  ambition  of  mere  territorial  exten- 
sion. Moab  has  violated  natural  sentiment  in  burning  the  bones  of 
the  King  of  Edom  to  lime.  A  threefold,  yes,  fourfold,  burden  of 
guilt  rests  upon  all  these  nations,  and  it  is  too  late  for  a  reprieve. 

We  can  imagine  the  inner  satisfaction  with  which  the  hearers, 
up  to  this  point  of  the  discourse,  listened  to  Amos's  denunciations. 
Damascus,  Philistia,  Ammon,  Moab,  these  were  their  hereditary 
enemies.  It  could  be  only  a  gratification  to  learn  that  the  wrath 
of  Yahweh  was  kindled  against  them,  and  that  their  punishment 
was  certain.  But  what  must  have  been  their  revulsion  of  feeling 
when  at  the  climax  of  the  discourse,  Israel  was  attacked  in  terms 
more  scathing  than  those  which  had  been  employed  for  any  of 
the  others  ;  when  it  appeared  that  Damascus  and  the  others  had 
been  mentioned  only  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  rebuke  of  the 
chosen  people  ! 

1  Amos,  6  *-*.  I  have  omitted  one  obscure  clause,  as  well  as  an  interpola- 
ted verse.  It  is  doubtful  whether  Zion  is  original  in  the  opening  clause— 
Ephraim  or  Israel  is  what  we  expect. 


216  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

"Thus  saith  Yahweh  :  For  the  threefold,  yes,  fourfold,  guin 
of  Israel  I  cannot  hold  back  its  sentence;  because  they  have 
sold  the  righteous  for  money,  and  the  needy  for  a  pair  of  shoes ; 
they  crush  the  head  of  the  poor  into  the  dust,  and  thrust  the 
lowly  into  the  pit ;  a  man  and  his  father  go  to  the  harlot  *  to 
profane  my  name;  on  garments  taken  in  pledge  they  stretch 
themselves  by  the  side  of  every  altar ;  wine  extorted  in  fines  they 
drink  in  the  house  of  their  God.  Yet  I  destroyed  before  them 
the  Amorite,  tall  as  the  cedars  and  strong  as  the  oaks ;  I  de- 
stroyed their  fruit  above,  and  their  roots  beneath  ;  and  I  brought 
you  up  from  Egypt  and  led  you  forty  years  in  the  Wilderness, 
to  possess  the  Amorites'  land ;  and  I  raised  up  prophets  of  your 
sons  and  Nazirites  of  your  young  men — is  not  this  true,  Sons  of 
Israel?  saith  Yahweh.  But  you  made  the  Nazirites  drink  wine, 
and  commanded  the  prophets  not  to  prophesy.  Behold,  I  will 
make  the  ground  rock  beneath  your  feet,  as  the  wagon  sways 
under  its  load  of  sheaves ;  and  flight  shall  be  cut  off  from  the 
swift,  and  the  strong  shall  not  show  his  strength,  nor  the  warrior 
save  his  life."  * 

The  old  phrase,  the  Day  of  Yahweh,  which  Amos  often  heard 
from  his  contemporaries,  received  from  him  a  new  meaning  in  ac- 
cordance with  this  conception  of  the  divine  purpose.  There  was 
to  be  such  a  Day — a  time  of  direct  intervention  in  the  affairs  of 
men.  But  it  would  not  be  a  day  of  deliverance.  Those  who 
dream  of  it  as  the  dawn  of  a  millennium  are  deceiving  themselves. 
"  Alas  for  those  who  are  longing  for  the  Day  of  Yahweh!  What 
good  is  the  Day  of  Yahweh  to  you  ?  It  is  darkness  and  not 
light — as  if  one  should  flee  from  a  lion  and  meet  a  bear,  or  come 
into  the  house,  and  lean  upon  the  wall  and  be  bitten  by  a  ser- 
pent. Is  not  the  Day  of  Yahweh  darkness  instead  of  light,  and 
gloomy  without  a  single  ray  of  brightness  ?  "  l  With  this  new  in- 
terpretation of  the  Day,  Amos  opened  the  way  to  a  long  series 
of  prophetic  anticipations  of  a  great  Day  of  Judgment  for  the 
nations. 

The  working  of  the  prophetic  soul  which  here  reveals  itself,  is, 

1  The  slave  consecrated  to  impure  rites  at  the  sanctuary  is  intended. 

1  Chapters  I  and  2  form  a  single  discourse  in  strophical  form.  The  latest 
study  of  it  is  by  Ltthr,  Untersuchungen  turn  Buck  Amos  (1901). 

1  Amos,  5  l*-".  For  a  recent  discussion  on  the  Day  of  Yahweh,  the  reader 
is  referred  to  the  Am.  Journal  of  Theol,  for  July,  1901. 


THE   HOUSE   OF  JEHU 

in  spite  of  the  length  of  time  by  which  it  is  separated  from  us, 
not  only  fully  intelligible,  but  also  sympathetic.  To  read  history 
in  the  light  of  conscience  is  what  all  great  thinkers  have  tried  to 
do.  The  great  fact  which  loomed  up  in  Amos'  political  field  of 
vision  was  the  coming  Assyrian  invasion.  The  great  world-power 
was  like  a  black  storm-cloud  on  the  horizon.  The  common  peo- 
ple or  even  the  nobles  might  ignore  it.  They  might  suppose  that 
with  the  humiliation  of  Damascus,  the  Great  King  had  reached 
the  limit  of  his  power,  and  that  they  themselves  were  beyond 
the  reach  of  his  arm.  Amos  could  not  so  judge.  His  intuition 
showed  him  that  such  a  power  is  always  extending  its  boundaries ; 
that  the  going  on  to  new  conquests  is  a  condition  of  life  to  it ; 
that  for  it  to  stop  advance  is  to  bring  on  a  crisis.  I  do  not  mean 
that  the  prophet  distinctly  formulated  to  himself  a  law  of  growth 
and  decline  of  great  empires.  But  he  had  a  vague  conception  of 
such  a  law,  and  a  very  distinct  conception  of  its  concrete  applica- 
tion in  the  case  before  him.  Where  Damascus,  Tyre,  Philistia 
had  succumbed,  it  was  not  likely  that  Israel  would  escape.  In  the 
nature  of  things  there  was  no  reason  why  the  Assyrian  armies 
should  spare  Samaria.  All  that  could  save  the  people  of  Yahweh 
was  a  special  intervention  of  Yahweh  Himself.  Had  Israel  any 
reason  to  hope  for  such  a  special  intervention  ?  Amos  in  all 
honesty  could  find  no  such  ground.  An  essential  condition  for 
intervention  must  be  conformity  to  the  will  of  Yahweh.  But 
this  was  wTiat  was  conspicuously  lacking.  Moral  corruption,  dis- 
obedience to  the  plain  demands  of  conscience,  man's  inhuman- 
ity to  man,  deadness  to  moral  issues — these  were  features  of  the 
situation  that  stared  him  in  the  face.  Hence  his  almost  despair- 
ing denunciation  of  punishment.  Only  once  does  he  intimate 
the  possibility  that  it  is  not  too  late  :  "  Hate  evil  and  love  good, 
and  establish  justice  in  the  gate ;  perchance  Yahweh,  God  of 
Israel,  may  pity  the  remnant  of  Joseph."1  Elsewhere  he  treats 
the  doom  of  his  people  as  certain. 

Pessimistic  preachers  rarely  find  a  hearing.     The  preaching  of 

1  Amos,  5  •*.  As  the  book  now  stands  it  concludes  with  a  paragraph  of  en- 
couragement (9  luli).  But  this  is  by  many  critics  held  to  be  the  work  of  a 
later  hand.  The  passage  as  it  stands  concerns  itself  with  things  in  which 
Amos  elsewhere  shows  no  special  interest — the  ruined  house  of  David,  Is- 
rael's possession  of  Edom,  the  replanting  of  the  people  on  the  land  from 
which  they  have  been  pulled  up.  Of  course  it  is  possible  that  an  original 
hope  of  Amos  has  here  been  expanded,  but  I  see  no  evidence  of  it 


21 8  OLD    TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

Amos  was  a  testimony  against  the  vices  of  the  times.  On  those 
who  first  heard  it,  it  had  little  effect.  All  the  more  striking  was 
its  impression  upon  succeeding  generations  of  preachers  as  well 
as  readers.  For  our  present  purpose  its  value  is  in  the  light  it 
throws  upon  the  times  of  Jeroboam  II.  Making  due  allowance 
for  the  one-sided  view  which  the  prophet  presents,  we  yet  see 
that  the  reign  so  brilliant  externally,  was  in  no  sense  the  be- 
ginning of  a  new  era.  Israel  was  socially  and  morally  corrupt. 
The  renewal  of  prosperity  brought  no  renovation  of  the  moral 
forces  of  the  nation.  Amos  was  right  in  his  forecast  of  the  fut- 
ure. The  Assyrian  storm-cloud  was,  in  fact,  gathering  on  the 
horizon.  In  a  little  while  it  must  break  upon  Israel  and  must 
work  complete  destruction. 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE    FALL   OF    SAMARIA 

THE  reign  of  Jeroboam  II  showed  the  energy  of  the  people, 
but  it  was  the  convulsive  energy  of  a  man  in  a  fever.  The  reac- 
tion began  with  the  death  of  the  king,  or  even  earlier.  His  son 
Zechariah  came  to  the  throne,  but  reigned  only  six  months 
before  his  murder  by  Shallum.  Shallum  enjoyed  the  ill-gotten 
throne  but  one  month  before  he  was  in  turn  murdered  by  Mena- 
hem,  one  of  the  generals.  Civil  war  raged,  and  the  ancient  cap- 
ital, Tirzah,  was  besieged  and  sacked  by  Menahem.1  The  reign 
of  this  king  lasted  ten  years,  but  not  without  conflict,  if  we  may 
judge  from  the  fact  that  he  bought  the  help  of  Tiglath-pileser  by 
an  enormous  tribute.  The  period  was,  in  fact,  a  period  of  an- 
archy. Before  looking  at  it  more  closely,  we  must  consider  two 
literary  monuments  which  belong  in  the  closing  years  of  Jero- 
boam II,  or  in  the  brief  reigns  which  follow. 

The  first  of  these  is  the  work  of  the  historian  whom  we  have 
called  E,  who  treated  from  his  own  point  of  view  the  same  mate- 
rial used  by  J,  and  whose  writing  was  afterward  combined  with 
that  of  his  predecessor.  We  can  readily  understand  how  a  gentle 
spirit  may  seek  consolation  for  the  sad  state  of  things  around 
him  in  contemplating  earlier  and  happier  generations.  Our 
author  is  one  of  the  earliest  examples  of  those  who  thus  seek 
consolation.  That  his  purpose  is  also  hortatory  is  evident ;  he 
will  hold  up  the  examples  of  the  Patriarchs  and  testify  of  the 
goodness  of  God  to  Israel.  Ignoring  the  primeval  history,  he 
therefore  begins  with  the  call  to  Abraham.  The  Patriarch  is 
presented  as  a  prophet  and  intercessor,  as  well  as  the  father  of  the 
chosen  people.  In  contrast  with  the  warlike  aggression  of  later 
generations  is  the  peaceful  method  in  which  Abraham  obtains  a 
foothold  in  the  land,  entering  into  covenant  with  the  Philistines. 

In  conscious  or  unconscious  opposition  to  Amos,  this  author 
lays  emphasis  upon  the  ritual  side  of  religion.  The  sanctuary  at 

1  2  Kings,  15  u,  where  Tirzah  should  probably  be  read  instead  of  Tiphsah 
(Sude  in  the  Ztitsch.  f.  d.  Altttst.  Wissensch.,  VI,  p.  159  (.). 

ai9 


22O  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

Bethel  seems  especially  dear  to  him,  for  he  relates,  with  evident 
interest,  the  story  of  its  founding  by  Jacob.  It  is  his  view  (as 
well  as  that  of  his  hero)  that  here  is  the  house  of  God  and  the 
gate  of  heaven.  The  ma((eba  set  up  by  Jacob  is  still  the  sacred 
object  in  the  sanctuary,  and  the  vow  of  Jacob  sets  the  precedent 
for  the  tithes  which  Amos  treats  with  such  contempt.  In  regard 
to  the  maf(eboth,  the  author  is  more  nearly  a  representative  of  the 
popular  religion  than  is  his  predecessor,  J.  He  even  gives  us  an 
example  of  a  sacred  pillar  erected  on  a  tomb,  showing  that  he 
had  no  distinct  opposition  t<  the  worship  of  the  manes.1  In  the 
matter  of  sacred  trees,  both  J  and  E  seem  to  have  shared  the 
superstition  of  their  contemporaries.  But,  in  general,  E  shows  a 
more  advanced,  at  least  a  less  anthropomorphic,  conception  of 
divine  things.  His  fondness  for  dreams  as  the  method  of  revela- 
tion is,  perhaps,  due  to  his  idea  of  the  distance  between  God  and 
man,  though  popular  conceptions  doubtless  had  their  influence. 

The  prophetic  preaching  of  righteousness  as  a  condition  of 
Yahweh's  good  pleasure,  has  doubtless  influenced  our  author. 
In  his  account  of  the  covenant  with  Israel  in  the  wilderness,  he 
inserts  not  a  decalogue  but  the  whole  codex  which  we  have  no- 
ticed under  the  name  Book  of  the  Covenant.8  He  could  hardly 
be  expected  to  see  that  legalism  might  become  almost  as  fatal  to 
spiritual  religion  as  was  the  sensuousness  of  Baal  worship.  In 
his  rehearsal  of  the  various  deliverances  of  the  past,  he  doubtless 
comforted  himself  with  the  thought  that  the  future  was  not  alto- 
gether hopeless.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  he  looked  upon 
the  monarchy  as  an  institution  contrary  to  the  will  of  God,  and 
that  he  rewrote  the  history  of  its  rise  under  the  hostile  bias  which 
betrays  itself  in  the  later  portions  of  the  book  of  Samuel.*  That 
he  had  a  high  idea  of  the  prophetic  office  has  already  been  no- 
ticed. Doubtless  his  political  ideal  was  embodied  in  the  theoc- 
racy whose  executive  officer  was  Moses,  and  which  he  thought  to 
be  revived  in  the  time  of  Samuel.* 

1  There  seems  to  be  no  other  way  to  account  for  the  ma((eba  on  the  tomb 
of  Rachel,  Gen.  35  *°.  That  animism  was  a  part  of  the  popular  religion 
down  to  a  comparatively  late  date  cannot  be  doubted. 

1  Ex.  20-23.     Cf.  what  was  said  above,  p.  174  ff. 

•Notably  in  I  Sam.  7,  8,  and  12 — though  in  their  present  form  these 
chapters  are  later  than  the  time  we  are  now  considering. 

*  I  am  aware  that  the  writing  ascribed  to  E  shows  marks  of  various  hands. 
What  has  been  said  above  applies  to  the  edition  published  in  the  time  of 


THE  FALL  OF  SAMARIA  221 

Fuller  light  upon  the  state  of  things  in  Israel  is  given  by  the 
book  of  Hosea.  The  author,  who  is  a  younger  contemporary  of 
Amos,  is  in  almost  every  respect  his  opposite.  The  strong  moral 
purpose  and  the  conviction  that  they  have  a  divine  message  to 
deliver  is  common  to  both  men.  But  in  almost  every  other  re- 
spect they  are  as  different  as  men  could  be.  Amos  is  the  stern 
moralist;  Hosea  is  the  man  of  religious  affection.  Amos  sees 
the  righteous  will  of  Yahweh  pronouncing  and  executing  judg- 
ment upon  Israel ;  Hosea  has  a  vision  of  the  loving  heart  of 
Yahweh  grieving  over  His  erring  children.  The  temperament 
of  the  men  is  different  and  their  experiences  in  life  bring  the 
difference  into  high  relief. 

The  remarkable  thing  in  the  life  of  Hosea  is  the  cloud  which 
rested  upon  it,  which  yet  gave  him  new  light  on  the  nature  of 
God.  He  married  a  woman  who  proved  to  be  unworthy,  and 
he  tenderly  loved  her  even  after  she  was  untrue  to  him.  He 
seems  to  have  suspected  her  fidelity  as  early  as  the  birth  of  his 
second  child,  for  he  called  the  little  girl  by  the  strange  name 
Unloved.  His  suspicions  were  confirmed  before  the  birth  of  the 
next  child,  whom  he  called  Not-my-kin.  Then  the  faithless  wom- 
an ran  away  from  her  home  and  abandoned  herself  to  a  life  of 
shame,  the  end  of  which  was  to  make  her  an  abject  slave.  In 
spite  of  all  her  baseness  Hosea  found  that  his  heart  still  went  out 
toward  her,  and  he  bought  her  from  her  master  that  she  might 
again  be  his  own. 

At  the  end  of  this  experience,  it  was  revealed  to  him  that  this 
was  the  Lord's  doing.  He  saw  that  the  scenes  he  had  gone 
through  were  a  presentation  in  human  life  of  the  drama  in  which 
Yahweh  and  Israel  had  the  leading  parts.  Yahweh  had  chosen 
Israel  as  His  own,  but  Israel  had  been  unfaithful.  The  very 
names  that  Hosea  had  been  led  to  give  his  children  were  reve- 
lations of  the  mind  of  Yahweh.  Jezreel,  the  first-born,  fore- 
shadowed the  vengeance  that  should  be  taken  for  the  crime  of 
Jezreel.1  Unloved,  the  next  child,  shows  «thc  revulsion  of  feeling 

Jeroboam  II  or  a  little  later.     This  edition  did  not  in.lude  the  decalogue  of 
Ex.  20,  nor  the  account  of  the  golden  bull  now  read  in  Ex.  32. 

1  That  is,  Jehu's  murder  of  the  two  kings  and  Jezebel.  The  blood  rested 
noon  the  house  of  Jehu.  The  progress  that  is  marked  by  Hosea,  as  com- 
pared with  the  time  when  the  Yahweh  party  made  Jehu  their  instrument, 
must  be  evident.  The  two  passages  which  speak  of  Hosea's  relations  with 
his  wife  (i  *-*  and  2  IJ)  should  be  read  together. 


222  OJ.D  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

in  the  heart  of  Yahweh,  in  view  of  Israel's  defection  from  Him. 
Not-my-kin?  the  youngest,  indicates  the  breaking  off  of  the  rela- 
tions which  had  existed  between  Yahweh  and  Israel.  And  yet 
even  when  the  final  sentence  of  separation  has  been  pronounced 
the  heart  of  Yahweh  goes  out  toward  His  people,  as  the  heart  of 
the  prophet  went  out  to  his  erring  wife.  He  cannot  give  them 
up.  Though  for  a  time  He  may  be  unable  to  restrain  them  from 
wandering,  yet  His  love  impels  Him  to  go  after  them.  He  will 
seek  them  and  lead  them  again  into  the  wilderness,  where,  as  of 
yore,  the  covenant  will  be  established  between  them.  The  heart 
of  Yahweh  is  revealed  to  us  by  the  heart  of  man. 

Hosea  is  thus  the  man  of  the  affections.  This  is  the  thing 
most  clearly  brought  out  by  his  book.  But  in  other  points  also 
he  differs  strikingly  from  Amos.  First  of  these  is  his  attitude 
towards  the  popular  religion.  Both  prophets  reject  the  cultus, 
but  they  reject  it  for  different  reasons.  Amos  is  impressed  with 
the  worthlessness  of  all  ritual — "  to  obey  is  better  than  sacrifice 
and  to  hearken  than  the  fat  of  lambs  "  might  be  a  quotation  from 
one  of  his  discourses.  He  nowhere  intimates  that  Israel's  worship 
was  offered  to  any  but  Israel's  God.  But  he  believes  that  ritual 
service  has  no  value  ;  if  men  will  only  do  right,  this  service  may 
be  dispensed  with.  Hosea's  position  is  different.  He,  too,  re- 
jects the  popular  ritual,  but  for  another  reason — he  distinctly  as- 
serts that  it  has  as  its  object,  not  Yahweh,  but  Baal.  Here  again 
he  shows  his  religious  temperament.  He  seems  to  be  aware  of 
the  Canaanitish  origin  of  the  sanctuaries,  and  of  the  worship 
there  offered.  He  sees  that  the  intention  of  the  people  is  to  con- 
ciliate the  Canaanite  god  of  agriculture.  He  represents  Israel  as 
saying :  "I  will  go  after  my  lovers,  who  give  me  my  bread  and  my 
water,  my  wool  and  my  flax,  my  oil  and  my  wine."  '  This  is, 
in  essence,  heathenism — it  is  serving  God  for  hire.  The  people, 
to  be  sure,  are  unaware  of  the  difference.  They  have  identified 
Yahweh  and  Baal,  and,  so  long  as  they  are  seeking  Yahweh,  they 
suppose  they  are  in  the  right  way.  Hosea  does  not  so  judge.  He 
sees  that  Baal  is  Baal,  even  though  he  is  called  Yahweh.  The 
true  God  of  Israel  is  of  a  different  nature  from  Baal. 

Another  point  is  that  Hosea,  in  contrast  with  Amos,  looks  upon 

1  Lo-ammi  means  either   Not-my-kin   or   Not-my-ptople  and    is    perhaps 
chosen  for  the  double  signification. 
»  Hosea  2  » 


THE   FALL  OF  SAMARIA  223 

the  coming  calamity  not  as  the  final  destruction  of  the  nation, 
but  as  a  chastisement,  out  of  which  the  people  will  come  purified. 
It  seems  clear  that  Amos  had  no  such  hope.  He  believed  that 
the  disobedient  nation  was  to  be  clean  destroyed.  What  would 
follow  he  does  not  tell  us.  Could  Yahweh  exist  without  a 
chosen  nation  to  serve  Him  ?  Amos  does  not  answer  the  question. 
If  he  supposed  that  Yahweh  would  make  choice  of  a  new  people, 
he  nowhere  revealed  the  thought.  Perhaps  he  did  not  speculate. 
But  Hosea  could  not  rest  in  the  thought  of  Israel's  final  destruc- 
tion. He  knew  that  the  heart  of  God  goes  out  to  His  people 
even  in  their  erring:  "  Return,  Israel,  to  Yahweh  thy  God,  for 
thou  hast  fallen  by  thine  iniquity.  ...  I  will  heal  their 
backslidings,  I  will  love  them  freely,  for  my  wrath  has  turned 
from  them.  I  will  be  as  the  dew  to  Israel ;  he  shall  spring  up 
like  the  lily  .  .  .  and  shall  be  like  the  fruitful  olive ;  he 
shall  be  fragrant  as  Lebanon."  l 

Both  in  identifying  the  popular  worship  with  Baal  worship,  and 
in  holding  out  a  hope  of  a  restoration,  Hosea  was  the  forerunner 
of  later  writers.  In  truth,  in  uttering  these  two  thoughts,  he 
was  more  influential  than  any  other  one  man  whose  writings  have 
come  down  to  us.  The  fact  is  clear  that  all  late  Hebrew  writers 
agree  in  condemning  the  earlier  generations  for  their  desertion  of 
Yahweh.  Equally  clear  is  it,  that  hope  of  a  prosperous  future 
beyond  the  present  calamities  became  the  mainspring  of  speech 
and  of  action  almost  from  this  time  on. 

Nevertheless,  Hosea's  picture  of  the  state  of  things  in  his  own 
time  is  as  dark  as  that  of  Amos — darker,  if  that  were  possible. 
The  religious  defection  which  he  discovered  in  the  popular  relig- 
ion was  accompanied  by  a  moral  defection  that  may  well  be 
called  desperate.  There  is  no  fidelity  and  no  knowledge  of  God 
in  the  land.  False  swearing,  murder,  theft,  adultery,  violence, 
are  seen  on  every  hand.  The  reason  is  found  in  the  conduct  of 
the  leading  classes.  With  Hosea  these  are  not  the  nobles  and 
landowners,  but  the  priests  and  prophets ;  it  is  not  strange  that 

1  Hosea,  I4*"7.  The  passage  has  probably  been  worked  over — we  can  un- 
derstand the  temptation  of  the  later  editors  to  mitigate  the  severe  denuncia- 
tions of  the  earlier  prophets.  A  number  of  such  modifications  are  found  in 
the  Book  of  Hosea,  and  are  easily  recognisable  as  insertions.  It  must  be 
true,  however,  that  Hosea  had  hopes  of  a  restoration.  If  Yahweh  still  love* 
His  people  though  erring,  there  must  be  a  future  for  them. 


224  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

he,  the  man  of  religion,  should  find  the  chief  guilt  in  the  relig- 
ious leaders.  They  are  the  ones  who  should  instruct  the  people 
in  righteousness;  but  instead,  they  lead  them  into  sin.  The 
unclean  rites  at  the  sanctuaries,  the  orgies  of  the  sacred  seasons — 
these  are  corrupting  the  heart  of  the  people.  Under  the  name 
of  religion  all  sorts  of  abominations  are  connived  at,  nay,  directly 
fostered  by  the  religious  leaders  ;  because  they  were  enabled  thus 
to  exploit  the  people  for  their  personal  gain.  We  may  think  of 
the  festivals  at  the  great  sanctuaries  as  like  the  Arab  fairs,  where 
men's  chief  object  was  trade  and  dissipation.  The  chief  sanctu- 
aries thus  become  dens  of  robbers,  where  cheating  and  extortion 
are  under  the  protection  of  the  guilds  of  priests.  The  guilds 
of  priests  themselves  profit  by  them  like  so  many  companies  of 
bandits.  In  this  way  the  priests  have  become  a  snare  for  the 
common  people,  and  the  royal  house  shares  their  guilt  by  not 
putting  an  end  to  these  abuses. 

The  people  themselves  have  an  uneasy  consciousness  that  all  is 
not  right  with  them.  They  have  spasms  of  repentance  in  which 
they  confess  their  sin.  At  the  same  time  they  comfort  them- 
selves with  the  thought  that  the  door  of  repentance  is  always 
open ;  Yahweh  is  easily  found,  and  though  He  has  smitten,  it  is 
easy  for  Him  to  heal.  Their  good  thoughts  are  evanescent — like 
the  morning  cloud,  or  like  the  mist  that  early  vanishes  away.1 
The  lack  of  a  sense  of  responsibility  is  seen  in  the  way  they  treat 
the  present  crisis.  At  one  time  they  will  make  their  confession 
to  Yahweh,  but  the  next  day  they  will  be  seeking  help  from  As- 
syria or  Egypt :  "  Ephraim  saw  his  sickness  and  Israel  his 
running  sore;  so  Ephraim  went  to  Assyria  and  sent  to  the  Great 
King  :  but  he  is  not  able  to  save  you  or  heal  the  running  sore."  * 
The  nation  is  like  the  foolish  dove  which  follows  the  call  of  the 
fowler,  flying  to  meet  its  doom.  Israel,  as  though  infatuated,  flies 
now  toward  Egypt,  now  toward  Assyria  :  "  They  make  a  treaty 
with  Assyria,  and  then  send  a  present  of  oil  to  Egypt  " — the  very 
capriciousness  of  their  conduct  is  enough  to  work  their  destruc- 
tion. The  frivolity  in  domestic  affairs  is  equally  marked  with 
what  shows  itself  in  their  foreign  policy.  Evidence  is  found  in 
the  frequent  change  of  dynasty.  They  anoint  a  king  in  false- 
hood, and  princes  in  deceit ;  they  rejoice  in  the  coronation  fes- 

1  Hosea,  5  14-64,  where  the  verses  '-*  are  the  lip  confession  of  the  people. 
•Hosea,  5",  correcting  some  errors  in  the  text;  cf.  7",  8*,  la1. 


THE  FALL  OF  SAMARIA  225 

tival,  and  within  a  few  days  their  wrath  breaks  out  and  they 
destroy  the  object  of  their  uncertain  loyalty.  No  wonder  that 
Yahweh  declares:  "  They  set  up  kings  but  not  of  my  will,  they 
appoint  princes  but  I  take  no  knowledge  of  them."  The  mon- 
archy as  an  institution  is  a  punishment  visited  upon  the  people; 
but  it  can  scarcely  be  a  relief  to  have  the  whole  frame  of  govern- 
ment swept  away — "  I  gave  thee  a  king  in  my  wrath,  and  I  will 
take  him  away  in  my  fury."  l 

Hosea's  anticipations  for  the  immediate  future  were  therefore 
gloomy.  Calamity  was  impending,  though  the  love  of  Yahweh 
might  spare  a  remnant  for  Himself.  The  present  anarchy  was, 
indeed,  itself  a  manifestation  of  the  wrath  of  Yahweh,  but  this 
was  only  a  shadow  of  the  coming  event.  Whether  to  Assyria  or 
to  Egypt,  the  people  would  be  taken  from  their  own  land.  Far 
from  the  soil  made  sacred  by  the  presence  of  Yahweh,  they 
would  be  condemned  to  eat  bread  desecrated  by  its  dedication 
to  a  strange  god.  It  was  only  justice  that  they  should  be  given 
completely  into  the  hand  of  the  foreign  gods  to  whom  they  had 
shown  favour.  Though  the  heart  of  Yahweh  was  love,  His  pres- 
ent mood  was  indignation  :  "  Should  I  ransom  them  from  the 
hand  of  Sheol  ?  Should  I  redeem  them  from  death  ?  Rather, 
bring  on  thy  scourges,  Death  !  Hither  with  thy  pestilence, 
Sheol  !  Pity  is  hidden  from  mine  eyes."1 

The  political  outlook  was  rapidly  growing  worse  for  Israel,  and 
Hosea's  gloomiest  forebodings  were  justified.  After  a  period  of 
comparative  inactivity,  Assyria  was  asserting  itself  with  fresh 
vigour  under  the  rule  of  Tiglath-pileser  III  (B.C.  745-727).  This 
monarch  was  not  only  a  man  of  great  energy  of  character,  but 
he  introduced  a  new  policy  for  the  empire.  The  earlier  kings 
had  for  the  most  part  been  content  to  leave  the  subject  nations 
some  sort  of  autonomy.  The  native  rulers  were  retained  upon 
the  throne  and  their  internal  administration  was  not  interfered 
with,  so  long  as  the  tribute  was  paid.  Tiglath-pileser  is  remark- 
able for  the  constancy  with  which  he  speaks  of  appointing  his 
governor  over  a  conquered  province.  In  fact,  he  characterizes 

1  Hosca,  13  "  ;  cf.  7  J,  8  *• I0,  10*.  The  prophet  seems  to  anticipate  that  the 
fall  of  the  house  of  Jehu  will  carry  with  it  the  abolition  of  monarchy.  I  can- 
not  otherwise  understand  the  threat :  "I  will  visit  the  blood  of  Jezreel  upon 
the  house  of  Jehu  and  will  Hot  out  the  kingship  of  the  house  of  Israel,"  I  *. 

1  Ibid.,  13  u,  I  have  reproduced  what  seems  to  be  the  sense  of  the  passage 


226  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

himself  as  the  king  who  subjugated  the  upper  and  lower  countries, 
deposed  their  kings  and  inaugurated  his  vicegerents.1  This  meas- 
ure was  not  enough,  however,  for  his  ideas  of  statecraft.  It  was 
supplemented  by  another  to  prevent  the  possibility  of  revolt. 
This  was  nothing  less  than  the  deportation  of  the  inhabitants  of 
a  province,  or  a  considerable  fraction  of  them,  and  settlement  of 
them  among  strangers  at  a  distance  from  their  home.  In  their 
new  situation  they  would  be  unable  to  make  common  cause  with 
their  fellow-subjects  and  the  throne  would  be  secure.  The  in- 
genuity of  the  measure  was  not  greater  than  its  cruelty.  Some  of 
the  unhappy  emigrants  were  settled  in  cities  built  or  enlarged  by 
the  king  ;  some  were  brought  to  Assyria  proper ;  some  were 
placed  in  remote  provinces.  The  king  has  left  on  record  various 
instances  of  this  procedure,  giving  account  of  the  numbers  trans- 
ported and  of  the  destination  to  which  they  were  taken.1  In 
this  method  of  treatment  was  a  new  terror  for  the  nations.  The 
renewed  activity  of  Assyria  meant  that  ancient  claims  upon  the 
nations  of  Syria  would  be  revived,  and  if  revived  that  they  would 
be  enforced  in  ways  destructive  to  the  national  life. 

We  have  already  noted  that  the  dynasty  of  Jehu  came  to  an 
end  with  Zechariah  ben  Jeroboam.  Shallum,  his  assassin,  was  mur- 
dered by  Menahem,  who  had  a  troubled  reign  of  ten  years.  He  is 
mentioned  by  the  Assyrians  as  sending  tribute  at  the  same  time 
with  Rezin  of  Damascus,  the  kings  of  Gebal,  Tyre,  Hamath,  and 
a  large  number  of  other  cities8  or  countries  of  Syria.  This  is 
the  tribute  of  a  thousand  talents  of  silver  mentioned  by  the  Bib- 
lical writer.  Menahem  raised  the  money  by  a  direct  tax  upon  the 
men  capable  of  bearing  arms.  As  they  were  assessed  fifty  shekels 
apiece,  there  were  sixty  thousand  householders  in  the  kingdom.4 
This  was  in  the  year  738  B.  c.  Whether  Egypt  was  already  acting 
cannot  positively  be  made  out,  but  it  seems  that  the  Assyrians 

1  Keilinsc hriftliche  Biblioihek,  II.  p.  5.  His  account  of  his  many  con- 
quests inserts  in  almost  every  case  :  /  set  my  vicegerent  over  them. 

*lbid.,  II.,  p.  29  f. 

1  Ibid.,  II,  p.  31.  The  name  of  the  King  of  Damascus  is  given  by  the 
Biblical  writers  as  Rezin.  The  form  Rezon  (Assyrian  A'asunnu)  is  perhaps 
nearer  the  original. 

4  The  owners  of  landed  property  were  the  only  ones  allowed  to  bear  arms. 
It  may  be  proper  to  remind  the  reader  that  the  king  called  Pul  in  2  Kings, 
1 5  "is  Tiglath-pileser.  I  have  taken  no  account  of  the  inscription  of  this 
king  (JCeilinschr.  Bibliothek,  II,  p.  27)  which  speaks  of  Axriyau  of  Yaudi 


THE  FALL  OF   SAMARIA  22^ 

kept  a  close  watch  upon  the  country  of  the  Nile  from  a  very 
early  date.  It  was  the  natural  policy  of  Egypt  when  threatened, 
to  employ  the  Palestinian  states  as  a  buffer,  if  not  to  enlist  them 
actively  in  its  service.  Palestine  is  the  natural  outpost  of  Egypt, 
and  we  are  not  surprised  to  learn  from  Hosea  that  an  Egyptian 
alliance  was  agitated  in  Israel  about  this  time.  The  tribute  of 
Menahem  kept  things  quiet  for  the  time  being.  His  son,  Pek- 
ahiah  was  allowed  to  rule  (or  only  to  reign)  two  years,  when  he 
was  cut  off  by  one  Pekah,  apparently  a  misguided  patriot  who  was 
hoping  to  throw  off  the  Assyrian  yoke.  In  this  he  was  encour- 
aged by  Rezin  of  Damascus,  who  planned  a  general  uprising  of 
the  western  countries.  Judah,  where  Ahaz  was  on  the  throne, 
would  not  join  the  coalition.  The  first  endeavour  of  the  allies, 
therefore,  was  to  force  Judah  to  join  them.  They  invaded  the 
country,  and  were  able  to  lay  siege  to  Jerusalem.  It  was  a  part 
of  their  plan  to  depose  Ahaz,  and  put  a  Syrian  prince  on  the 
throne,1  and  the  terror  they  inspired  in  Ahaz  indicates  either 
that  they  were  greatly  his  superiors  in  power,  or  that  there  was  a 
strong  party  in  Judah  in  sympathy  with  the  invaders.  Both  may 
be  true,  but  more  weight  must  be  given  to  the  sympathy  with  the 
invaders.  All  the  hot-heads  and  advocates  of  the  ancient  liber- 
ties of  Judah  would  urge  rebellion  against  the  Assyrian  oppressor. 
We  may  admire  the  courage  of  their  programme  without  approv- 
ing its  discretion.  In  fact,  the  attempt  was  hopeless.  Isaiah  was 
right  in  predicting  the  early  downfall  of  the  two  kingdoms. 

Ahaz  was  moved  by  his  fears  rather  than  by  the  assurances  of 
Isaiah.  This  is  indicated  by  the  effusiveness  with  which  he  threw 
himself  into  the  arms  of  Assyria.  With  all  the  valuables  of  his 
own  treasury,  as  well  as  those  in  the  Temple,  he  sent  the  message: 
"  I  am  thy  slave  and  thy  son  ;  save  me  from  the  King  of  Syria 
and  the  King  of  Israel,  who  are  attacking  me." J  Tiglath-pileser 
needed  no  prompting.  The  refusal  of  tribute  by  Rezin  and  Pekah 

heading  a  conspiracy  against  the  Assyrians.  In  spite  of  the  similarity  of 
names  I  cannot  think  that  Azariah  (Uzziah)  of  Judah  was  strong  enough  to 
head  such  a  movement.  For  the  other  view,  cf.  McCurdy,  History,  Propk- 
eey,  and  the  Monuments,  I,  p.  347  f. 

1  Or  perhaps  to  incorporate  Judah  in  the  Kingdom  of  Damascus,  in  which 
case  Rezin  himself  is  the  "  Son  of  Tabeal,"  of  the  account  in  Isaiah  (7*) ; 
cf.  Winckler,  Alttest.  Untersuchungen,  p.  73  f. 

1  2  Kings,  1 6 T.  The  position  of  Isaiah  will  be  considered  again,  more  in 
detail. 


228  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

had  already  set  his  army  in  motion.  In  the  invasion  which  ensued 
Damascus  was  taken,  Rezin  was  slain,  large  numbers  of  his  peo- 
ple were  deported  to  the  East.1  In  this  campaign  the  Great 
King  carried  his  arms  as  far  as  Gaza.  The  whole  land  of  Israel 
was  taken  in  possession.  Samaria  was  spared  the  horrors  of  siege, 
but  large  sections  of  the  country  were  depopulated,  the  inhabit- 
ants being  carried  away  to  the  eastern  provinces  of  the  empire. 
The  reason  that  the  capital  was  spared  was  that  Hoshea,  a  creat- 
ure of  the  Assyrians,  succeeded  in  slaying  the  king,  and  put  him- 
self in  his  stead  as  the  Assyrian  appointee.2  The  impoverished 
land  had  to  pay  a  tribute  of  ten  talents  of  gold  and  a  thousand 
talents  of  silver. 

The  next  Assyrian  king,  Shalmaneser  IV,  has  left  us  no  annals. 
The  Biblical  writer  says  that  Hoshea  was  found  conspiring  against 
his  master,  because  he  sent  messengers  to  So,  King  of  Egypt, 
and  because  he  did  not  send  the  tribute.  We  can  readily  un- 
derstand the  delay  in  sending  the  tribute  ;  it  was  a  physical 
impossibility  to  wring  anything  from  the  exhausted  country. 
The  negotiation  with  the  King  of  Egypt  is  less  easy  to  account 
for.  One  would  think  that  Israel  had  had  object-lessons  enough 
both  to  teach  the  power  of  Assyria,  and  to  warn  against  the  un- 
certainty of  reliance  upon  Egypt.  Still  Egypt  was  a  name  to 
conjure  with  in  Palestine.  Its  early  power  and  wealth  had  laid 
upon  its  neighbours  a  spell  that  was  never  removed.  Their  re- 
peated disappointments  seemed  to  make  them  no  wiser.  At 
about  the  period  now  under  consideration,  Egypt  was  showing 
new  activity.  The  king,  whose  name  is  S0,3  according  to  the 
traditional  Hebrew  text,  is  probably  to  be  identified  with  the  Sa- 
bako  of  the  Egyptian  records.  He  was  an  energetic  prince  of 
Ethiopian  origin,  who  succeeded  in  bringing  all  Egypt  under  his 
sway.  His  career  might  well  make  an  impression  on  Hoshea. 
Active  antagonism  between  Egypt  and  Assyria  developed  as  a 

1  The  capture  of  the  city  and  the  death  of  Rezin  are  mentioned,  2  Kings, 
l6*.  The  Assyrian  annals  are  still  defective  at  this  point. 

*  Tiglath-pileser  claims  to  have  slain  Pekah,  and  to  have  appointed  Hoshea, 
Keilinschr.  Bibliothek,  II,  p.  33.  Cf.  Winckler,  A  litest.  Untersuchungen,?. 
l8.  The  twenty  years'  reign  assigned  to  Pekah,  by  2  Kings,  Ig27,  must  be 
an  error  ;  see  Paton,  Early  History  of  Syria  and  Palestine,  p  240. 

1  The  vocalisation  is  probably  at  fault.  The  Assyrian  pronunciation  Sii'u 
would  indicate  that  the  Hebrew  consonants  were  originally  intended  to  be 
read  Sewe. 


THE   FALL  OF  SAMARIA  22Q 

consequence  of  Sabako's  ambitious  plans.  Doubtless  he  had 
worked  up  a  coalition,  of  which  Hoshea  was  a  member.  The  As- 
syrian reply  was  an  invasion  which  crushed  out  the  remnants  of 
strength  that  showed  themselves  in  this  convulsive  movement. 
The  first  blow  naturally  fell  upon  Samaria.  The  city  was  in- 
vested, but  held  out  two  years.  Meanwhile  the  country  experi- 
enced the  extremity  of  war.  Shalmaneser  did  not  live  to  see 
the  surrender  of  Israel's  capital.  His  successor,  Sargon,  enrolled 
«t  among  his  conquests.  The  other  members  of  the  coalition 
fared  no  better  than  Israel.  Sargon  carried  his  arms  to  the  ex- 
treme  south  of  Philistia,  where  he  met  the  tardy  Egyptian  army 
and  defeated  it.  He  claims  to  have  received  tribute  from  a  Pha- 
raoh as  a  consequence  of  the  battle.1 

The  fall  of  Samaria  took  place  early  in  the  year  B.C.  721. 
Sargon  claims  to  have  carried  away  27,290  of  the  inhabitants  of 
the  city.  These  we  may  suppose  to  be  the  well-to-do,  if  any 
may  be  so  described  after  a  two  years'  siege.  He  says  expressly 
that  he  left  the  rest  in  possession  of  their  property.  The  country 
was  formally  made  a  province  of  the  empire,  a  governor  being 
appointed  over  it.  Thus  the  Kingdom  of  Israel  came  to  an  end 
about  two  hundred  years  after  its  establishment  by  Jeroboam  ben 
Nebat.  The  outlying  districts  had  been  ravaged,  and  numbers 
of  the  people  carried  away  by  Tiglath-pileser,  whose  work  was 
now  completed  by  Sargon.  According  to  the  Biblical  narrative 
the  unfortunate  emigrants  were  settled  in  the  Assyrian  province 
of  Gozan*  and  in  the  mountains  of  Media.  Imagination  has 
busied  itself  with  the  fate  of  the  lost  Ten  Tribes,  as  though  they 
must  be  retaining  their  coherence  in  some  far-off  country,  ready 
for  the  return  expected  and  described  by  the  prophets.  The  his- 

1  Sargon's  account  is  to  the  effect  that  Hanun  of  Gaza,  together  with 
Sib'u,  General  (Turtan)  of  Egypt,  opposed  him  at  Raphia.  The  place 
may  be  identified  with  Tell  Riph,  just  at  the  Wadi  el  Arish,  and  therefore 
on  the  border  of  Egypt.  Hanun  had  trusted  in  the  strength  of  his  fortifi- 
cations, leaving  the  city  to  defend  itself,  while  he  and  his  troops  effected  a 
junction  with  the  Egyptians.  What  were  the  relations  between  Sib'u  and 
the  Pharaoh  who  is  named  as  tributary  to  Sargon  is  not  clear.  Cf.  Keilin- 
sckr.  Bibliothek,  II,  p.  55;  McCurdy,  History,  Prophecy,  and  Monuments, 
I,  p.  422.  Winckler  finds  here  the  Arabian  kingdom  of  Afufri  instead  of 
Egypt ;  Keilinschriften  und  Altes  Testament,1  pp.  67,  146. 

1  In  Upper  Mesopotamia.  On  the  text  of  2  Kings,  17',  compare  Winckler'i 
Alttett.  Untersuthungen,  p.  loSff. 


23O  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

tory  we  have  traced  allows  us  to  cherish  no  illusions.  The  Ten 
Tribes  in  captivity  are  a  figment  of  the  imagination.  There 
never  was  such  a  political  or  social  entity.  The  Israelites  were 
carried  off  as  fragments,  and  as  fragments  they  were  scattered 
widely  apart  in  the  provinces  of  Assyria.  In  the  struggle  for  sub- 
sistence among  strangers  they  either  succumbed  to  their  misery 
or  became  absorbed  into  the  communities  in  the  midst  of  which 
they  were  planted.  They  had  no  faith  in  Yahweh  strong  enough 
to  resist  the  influences  by  which  they  were  surrounded.  The  fate 
of  Israel  made  them  doubt  either  the  power  or  the  affection  of 
their  God.  Why  should  they  persist  in  the  worship  of  a  God 
who  had  been  unable  to  save  His  own,  or  else  had  cast  them 
off?  The  gods  of  their  neighbours  might  be  more  kind  or  more 
efficient  than  the  God  of  their  fathers.  The  prophets  no 
longer  spoke  to  them  ;  the  written  Law  had  not  yet  become  a 
power.  We  can  understand  how  in  such  circumstances  this 
should  be  their  reasoning,  and,  as  its  consequence,  that  they 
should  adopt  the  religion  and  the  customs  of  their  new  homes. 

A  curious  monument  of  the  antique  way  of  looking  at  religion 
is  preserved  to  us  in  the  sequel  to  our  account.  I  refer  to  the 
story  of  the  colonists  who  were  brought  into  the  land  of  Israel  to 
take  the  place  of  those  who  had  been  carried  away.  We  must,  of 
course,  remember  that  no  country  is  ever  absolutely  stripped  of 
its  inhabitants.  Such  a  thing  is  an  impossibility.  Even  were  it 
possible,  the  kings  of  Assyria  had  no  interest  in  making  a  desert 
of  any  one  of  their  provinces.  Such  an  act  would  be  contrary 
to  their  own  interest.  Their  purpose  in  the  transfer  of  peoples 
was  to  mix  their  subjects  in  such  proportions  that  they  would 
lose  tribal  or  national  coherence,  and  would  find  it  impos- 
sible to  revolt.  In  Samaria,  as  we  have  already  noted,  Sargon 
left  a  considerable  number  of  Israelites  in  undisturbed  possession 
of  their  property.  Along  with  these  he  settled  compulsory  immi- 
grants from  the  eastern  provinces  of  his  empire.1 

1  a  Kings,  1 7  **.  The  Hebrew  writer,  who  livc^  at  least  as  late  as  the  Ex- 
He,  names  Babylon,  Kutha,  Avva,  Hamath,  and  Sepharvaim  as  the  native 
countries  of  the  colonists.  The  more  remote  Babylon  and  Kutha  are  the 
probable  sources.  Possibly  more  than  one  settlement  was  made,  since  the 
book  of  Ezra  (4*)  speaks  of  a  colony  settled  by  Esarhaddon,  and  a  little  later 
(Ezra,  4  10)  we  hear  the  colonists  ascribe  their  settlement  to  Assurbanipal 
(Asnapper).  On  the  questions  involved,  see  Winckler,  Alttestamentlickt 
Untersuchungen,  pp.  97-110. 


THE   FALL   OF   SAMARIA 

The  new  settlers  were  soon  in  trouble.  The  country,  so  devas- 
tated by  repeated  wars,  gave  harbour  to  ferocious  beasts.  Lions 
increased  to  such  an  extent  as  to  become  a  serious  menace.  In 
an  age  ignorant  of  firearms,  such  a  calamity  is  always  among  the 
possibilities — an  early  Biblical  writer  found  a  sufficient  reason  for 
Yah  wen's  not  dispossessing  the  Canaanites  all  at  once  in  the  dan- 
ger that  in  the  desolated  country  "  the  beasts  of  the  field  should 
increase  "  against  the  Israelites.1  In  the  case  before  us,  the  new 
inhabitants  of  Samaria  searched  their  consciences  for  a  cause  of 
the  visitation.  They  found  it  in  the  wrath  of  the  God  of  the  land 
at  their  neglect  of  His  worship.  That  they  might  make  good  their 
shortcoming,  and  that  they  might  do  it  in  the  manner  pleasing  to 
Him,  they  petitioned  the  king  of  Assyria  for  an  instructor  in  religion. 
One  of  the  Israelite  priests  was  therefore  sent  from  the  East  "and 
taught  them  how  they  should  fear  Yahweh."  The  scorn  of  the 
narrator  for  the  people  who  thus  feared  Yahweh,  while  still  serv- 
ing their  ancestral  gods,  is  evident,  and  makes  us  doubt  the  lit- 
eral truth  of  his  story.  The  need  of  a  priest  to  teach  the  colon- 
ists is  not  apparent — there  were  enough  Israelites  left  in  the  land 
to  teach  the  traditional  worship,  even  if  we  suppose  the  whole 
body  of  priests  to  have  been  carried  away.  But  the  actual  result 
reached — the  adoption  of  the  worship  of  Yahweh — is  probably 
correctly  described.  It  is  what  would  be  most  likely  to  take 
place  in  any  ancient  community.  Yahweh  was  the  God  of  the 
land.  To  neglect  Him  would  be  dangerous  to  the  new  settlers. 
We  have  seen  just  this  tendency  at  work  in  the  earlier  times  in 
relation  to  the  Baal-worship  of  the  Canaanites  and  its  effect  on 
the  Israelites.  And,  if  it  made  Yahweh-worshippers  of  the  new- 
comers, the  same  tendency  working  on  the  deported  Israelites 
would  lead  them  to  adopt  the  religion  of  their  new  homes,  and 
would  result  in  the  practical  abandonment  of  Yahweh.1 

The  old  Israelite  spirit  seems  not  to  have  been  wholly  broken, 

1  Ex.  23  —.  Even  in  this  age  of  firearms,  lions  seriously  interfered  with 
the  construction  of  a  railway  in  Africa.  See  the  London  Spectator  for  March, 
1900,  p.  307. 

1  The  account  in  2  Kings,  17  lt-*4,  seems  to  be  composite.  The  more  an- 
cient element  represents  the  visitation  of  the  lions  as  a  chastisement  by  Yah- 
weh, in  punishment  of  the  new  people's  neglect.  It  seems  to  see  in  the  re- 
sult a  genuine  adoption  of  Yahweh  by  the  newcomers.  A  later  hand  empha- 
sises the  syncretistic  character  of  the  new  religion,  doubtless  with  a  strong 
prejudice  against  the  Samaritans. 


232  OLD    TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

even  by  conquest,  siege,  and  the  intrusion  of  strangers,  for  we 
hear  of  a  revolt  of  Samaria  two  years  after  the  surrender  to  Sar- 
gon.1  But  this  was  only  the  last  convulsive  gasp  of  the  body 
politic  in  its  death-throes.  With  the  incorporation  of  Ephraim 
into  the  Assyrian  province  called  "Beyond  the  River,"  it  ceases 
to  belong  to  the  history  of  Israel.  That  history  is  carried  on  by 
Judah  alone,  who  now  receives  our  heightened  interest. 

For  the  last  period  of  the  life  of  Samaria,  Judah  has  left  us  al- 
most no  records.  As  we  have  seen,  the  folly  of  Amaziah  brought 
his  kingdom  into  vassalage  to  Israel.  It  is  not  likely  that  the 
relation  was  changed  during  the  lifetime  of  Jeroboam  II.  The 
king,  whom  we  usually  call  Uzziah,2  may  have  had  energy  enough 
to  assert  his  independence.  Almost  the  only  thing  that  our 
sources  record  of  his  fifty  years'  reign  is  that  he  fortified  Eloth 
at  the  head  of  the  Gulf  of  Akaba  and  "brought  it  again  to 
Judah."  s  As  Amaziah,  his  father,  had  conquered  Edom,  we 
must  suppose  that  a  revolt  took  place  at  the  accession  of  Uzziah, 
but  that  it  was  quelled  so  far  as  to  retain  Eloth,4  and  with  it  con- 
trol of  the  Arabian  commerce,  in  the  hands  of  Judah. 

Uzziah  was  afflicted  with  leprosy  during  the  latter  years  of  his 
life,  and  the  administration  of  affairs  was  formally  committed 
to  his  son  Jotham.  The  author  of  the  Book  of  Chronicles  de- 
scribes the  leprosy  as  a  visitation  of  God,  in  punishment  for  an 
act  of  sacrilege  on  the  part  of  the  king — he  attempted  to  usurp 
the  priest's  function  so  far  as  to  burn  incense  in  the  Temple.  The 
Greek  translator  of  the  account  emphasises  the  miracle  by  an 
earthquake  accompanied  by  a  celestial  voice.  The  legendary  na- 
ture of  the  narrative  in  both  forms  is  evident.  And  the  doubts 
which  it  occasions  naturally  extend  to  the  Chronicler's  account 
of  Uzziah's  success,  both  in  war  and  in  the  arts  of  peace.5 

1  Perhaps  disorders  incident  to  the  deportation  of  the  people  are  dignified 
by  the  name  of  a  revolt  by  Sargon. 

1  In  the  majority  of  cases  he  is  so  called  in  the  Hebrew  text,  but  he  is  sev 
eral  times  called  Azariah.  The  latter  seems  to  be  the  original  form. 

*  2  Kings,  14".     Amaziah's  victory  over  Edom  is  related  in  15  T. 

4  Our  Hebrew  text  fluctuates  between  Eloth  and  Elath  as  the  name  of  the 
place,  and  the  English  version  also  gives  both  forms.  I  have  retained  Eloth 
because  the  name  was  probably  a  plural. 

6The  text  of  2  Kings,  15*,  is  corrupt.  While  we  are  able  to  make  out 
that  Jotham  administered  justice  in  the  king's  stead,  we  are  not  able  to  say 
what  treatment  the  king  himself  received.  Apparently  he  was  not  compelled 
to  isolate  himself,  except  so  far  as  the  public  business  was  concerned. 


THE   FALL  OF  SAMARIA  233 

The  comparatively  brief  reign  of  Jotham  (B.C.  739-734)  gives 
us  nothing  to  record.  We  may  well  suppose  that  the  shadow  of 
coming  events  lay  upon  the  country,  and  this  is  perhaps  indicated 
by  the  Hebrew  writer  when  he  says  that  in  those  days  Yahweh 
began  to  incite  Rezin  of  Syria,  and  Pekah  of  Israel  against  Ju- 
dah.1  This  means  that  Pekah,  who  assassinated  his  master  near 
the  end  of  Jotham's  reign,  was  already  pressing  his  plan  of  a  co- 
alition against  Assyria.  We  need  not  suppose,  therefore,  that 
sympathy  with  the  disorganisation  in  Israel  was  acute  in  Judah. 
The  two  kingdoms  had  long  been  separate,  and  had  generally 
been  hostile.  Only  half  a  century  had  elapsed  since  Jehoash  en- 
tered the  capital  as  a  conqueror  and  razed  a  considerable  part  of 
its  fortifications.  Still,  the  traditional  hostility  could  hardly  keep 
thoughtful  men  in  Judah  from  sympathising  in  the  troubles  of 
those  who  were,  after  all,  of  the  same  blood  as  themselves.  The 
prophet  Isaiah  shows  some  traces  of  this  sympathy,  but  his  keen 
sense  of  the  justice  of  Yahweh  makes  him  view  the  coming  ca- 
lamity as  testimony  to  the  sinfulnessof  the  sister  kingdom.  We 
may  read  his  verdict  in  one  of  the  early  chapters  of  his  book  : 

"  For  Yahweh  has  rejected  His  people 

The  house  of  Jacob  ; 
For  they  are  full  of  divination  from  the  East 

And  of  magicians,  like  the  Philistines, 
And  they  strike  hands  with  foreigners. "  * 

The  terms  of  the  description  leave  no  doubt  that  the  prophet 
saw  the  kingdom  of  Samaria,  in  apparent  external  prosperity,  en- 
tering into  close  alliance  with  other  nations  and  adopting  their 
superstitions.  That  Judah  is  travelling  the  same  road  does  not 
make  things  better.  More  distinct  is  the  following: 

"  The  Lord  has  sent  a  word  against  Jacob 

And  it  has  lighted  upon  Israel, 
And  the  people  shall  know,  all  of  them, 

Ephraim  and  the  dwellers  in  Samaria ; 
Who  stiffen  their  neck  in  pride 

And  in  self-conceit,  saying : 
The  bricks  are  fallen 

But  we  will  build  with  hewn  stone ; 

•l  Kings,  15  IT.  The  sixteen  years  given  to  Jotham's  reign  must  include 
the  years  of  his  regency. 

1  Isaiah,  2*'.     The  whole  passage  should  be  read  in  this  connexion. 


234  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

The  sycomores  are  hewn  down 

But  we  will  replace  them  with  cedars. 
Yahweh  will  raise  up  his  enemies  against  him. 

And  will  stir  up  his  adversaries ; 
Syria  in  the  east  and  Philistia  in  the  west ; 

To  devour  Israel  with  open  mouth. 
Even  then  His  wrath  will  not  turn  away, 

And  His  hand  is  stretched  out  still."  l 

The  discourse  continues  with  a  still  stronger  denunciation  of 
punishment.  In  line  with  Amos  and  Hosea  the  prophet  dis- 
covers the  reason  for  the  coming  calamity  in  the  inhumanity  of 
the  upper  classes  "who  issue  iniquitous  decrees  and  enact  op- 
pressive statutes,  to  shut  out  the  lowly  from  justice,  and  to  secure 
a  decision  by  intimidation  in  the  case  of  the  oppressed." 

The  unity  of  the  prophetic  teaching  in  the  two  kingdoms  is 
thus  made  evident.  And  that  Jerusalem  and  Samaria  were  much 
alike  is  shown  further  by  the  fact  that  prophecies  originally  di- 
rected against  Samaria  have  been  adapted  to  the  situation  in 
Isaiah's  own  city.  The  most  convincing  instance  is  the  power- 
ful passage  which  begins  with  a  woe  upon  the  "proud  crown 
of  Ephraim,  the  drunkard."  The  proud  crown  is,  of  course, 
Samaria  itself,  and  the  threat  that  it  shall  be  trodden  under  foot 
foreshadows  the  doom  of  the  city.  But  as  it  has  come  down  to 
us  the  paragraph  has  been  made  the  text  of  a  sermon  against  the 
drunkards  of  Judah.*  In  like  manner  the  bold  description  of  the 
Day  of  Yahweh  bringing  destruction  "on  all  that  is  beautiful 
and  brilliant,  on  all  that  is  high  and  noble,  on  all  the  proud 
cedars  of  Lebanon,  and  all  the  lofty  oaks  of  Bashan  " — may 
well  have  been  spoken  in  view  of  the  impending  invasion  of  the 
northern  kingdom.1  But  it  is  now  a  part  of  a  discourse  against 
the  people  of  Judah. 

The  youthful  Ahaz  (B.C.  735-730)  came  to  an  inheritance  of 
trouble.  The  temporary  wave  of  energy  in  Samaria  and  Damas- 
cus showed  itself  in  the  invasion  of  Judah,  to  which  allusion  has 
already  been  made.  At  the  same  time  (we  may  suppose)  the 

1  Isaiah,  9T"n.  For  the  text  see  Cheyne's  edition  in  Haupt's  Sacred  Books 
tffthe  Old  Testament  (1899). 

1  Ibid.,  28  '-*.  The  continuation  is  evidently  by  the  prophet  himself,  but  of 
later  dpte- 

•  Ibid.,  2  "•".     Notice  the  continuation  in  3  '  ". 


THE  FALL  OF   SAMARIA  23$ 

Edomites  seeing  their  opportunity,  regained  the  port  of  Eloth.1 
Almost  all  we  know  of  the  reign  of  Ahaz  is  contained  in  the  ac- 
count of  the  invasion  given  in  the  book  of  Isaiah.1  The  approach 
of  the  allied  army  caused  a  panic  in  Jerusalem.  As  the  city  has 
a  precarious  water  supply,  Ahaz  at  once  proceeded  to  inspect  the 
reservoirs.  While  thus  engaged  he  was  sought  out  by  Isaiah, 
who  had  a  special  message  of  encouragement  for  him.  It  is  not 
difficult  to  suppose  that  the  king  had  earlier  denunciations  of  the 
prophet  in  mind,  and  feared  that  the  invasion  portended  the 
great  Day  of  Yahweh.  Isaiah  is  now  charged  to  tell  him  that 
this  is  not  the  case.  ' '  Beware  and  keep  calm  !  Do  not  fear  or 
let  thy  heart  grow  faint  before  these  two  half-burnt  pieces  of 
firewood."  Isaiah  saw  that  the  strength  of  Syria  and  Ephraim 
was  already  spent.  There  was  no  reason  to  fear  them  ;  and  a 
sign  of  what  the  prophet  expects  was  given.  This  sign  is  simply 
a  prediction  that  a  boy  to  be  born  in  the  coming  year  shall  re- 
ceive the  name  God-with-us ',  because  of  the  signal  deliverance 
then  witnessed,  and  that  before  the  same  child  is  weaned,  the  two 
hostile  countries  shall  be  themselves  ravaged  by  an  invader.  To 
make  a  deeper  impression  Isaiah  calls  his  own  son,  born  about 
the  same  time,  Haste-spoil-speed-prey,  as  a  second  sign  that  the 
riches  of  Damascus  and  Samaria  are  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the 
king  of  Assyria.1 

Ahaz  was  not  impressed  by  the  calm  faith  of  Isaiah.  He  had 
recourse  to  Yahweh  in  much  more  drastic  fashion — if  we  may 
connect  with  this  invasion  the  sacrifice  of  his  son  of  which  the 
book  of  Kings  speaks.*  At  the  same  time  he  had  set  his  heart 
on  a  political  measure — no  less  than  complete  submission  to  the 
Assyrian  power.  It  was  from  this  that  Isaiah  sought  to  deter 
him.  The  prophet's  own  theory  was  doubtless  that  Judah  should 

1  2  Kings,  1 6s,  as  amended  by  Klostermann. 

1  Isaiah,  7  and  8.  The  two  chapters  have  been  supplemented  by  later 
hands,  as  is  shown  in  Cheyne's  editions  (text  and  translation),  and  in  Duhm's 
commentary  (Handkommentar,  Gflttingen,  1892). 

*  It  is  evident  that  the  two  children,  Immanuel  and  Maher-shalal-hash-baz, 
are  given  names  symbolical  of  the  same  event.  The  destruction  of  Damas- 
cus (and  virtually  of  Samaria)  is  to  take  place  before  one  is  weaned,  before 
the  other  can  talk. 

*a  Kings,  16*.  No  other  occasion  in  the  life  of  Ahaz  calls  for  so  extraor- 
dinary a  propitiatory  act.  The  parallel  with  Mesha's  sacrifice  to  Ch» 
mosh  (3  n)  is  striking.  What  puzzles  us  is  that  Isaiah  left  no  protest 


336  OLD  TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

trust  to  Yahweh  alone.  This  implied  that  the  people  (or  the 
monarch)  should  undertake  social  reforms,  for  righteousness  and 
humanity  alone  would  secure  the  favour  of  Yahweh. 

Political  writers  will  probably  criticise  Isaiah's  position  as 
doctrinaire.  But  it  is  not  certain  that,  even  on  the  ground  of  an 
enlightened  self-interest,  Isaiah  was  not  right.  The  two  invad- 
ing kingdoms  were  actually  in  no  condition  to  carry  on  a  pro- 
longed siege.  It  was  certain  that  in  the  near  future,  Assyria 
must  interfere  in  order  to  conserve  its  own  prestige.  Had  Ahaz 
chosen  to  rest  in  the  righteousness  of  his  cause,  he  would  have 
been  in  a  better  position  than  he  was  in  after  his  gratuitous 
submission  to  Assyria. 

What  actually  happened  was  (as  we  have  seen)  that  Ahaz  sent 
all  the  treasure  he  could  lay  his  hands  on  to  Tiglath-pileser,  with 
an  appeal  for  help.  The  great  king  was  perhaps  already  on  the 
march.  When  he  entered  Damascus  in  triumph,  he  held  a  great 
Durbar,  at  which  Ahaz  was  present.  All  that  the  Biblical  writer 
tells  us,  is  that  innovations  in  the  Temple  were  the  result  of  this 
visit.  Ahaz  was  pleased  with  an  altar  which  he  saw  at  Damas- 
cus, and  sent  the  pattern  to  his  priest  at  Jerusalem  with  orders 
to  make  one  like  it.  This  was  set  up  in  the  Temple  as  the  prin- 
cipal altar.1  Other  changes  were  made  in  the  Temple  as  the 
result  of  this  visit.  A  part  of  them — the  cutting  in  pieces  of 
some  of  the  metal  implements — may  be  accounted  for  as  methods 
of  raising  money  for  the  tribute.  But  structural  changes  belong 
in  a  different  category.  Whatever  they  were,*  they  were  under- 
taken for  the  sake  of  the  king  of  Assyria,  and  we  shall  do  no  in- 
justice to  Ahaz  if  we  suppose  they  were  intended  to  introduce  the 
gods  of  Assyria  to  Jerusalem.  Submission  to  the  empire  would 
logically  imply  such  a  step.  The  conscience  of  the  king  would 
pretty  certainly  find  no  objection  to  it,  and  the  people  at  large 
would  scarcely  be  more  sensitive.  Later  generations  would  feel 
strongly  the  shame  of  such  a  desecration  of  the  Temple,  and  it  is 

1  Whether  there  was  already  an  altar  in  the  Temple  is  doubtful ;  for  we 
have  seen  reason  to  suppose  that  the  native  rock  furnished  the  original  place 
of  sacrifice.  In  that  case  the  reference  to  the  "copper  altar,"  2  Kings, 
l6I4f,  is  a  later  insertion  as  is,  in  fact,  suggested  by  the  language  itself,  which 
moreover  is  obscure  in  its  indications  of  what  was  done. 

'The  text  is  unfortunately  corrupt,  but  2  Kings,  i618,  speaks  of  alterations 
in  the  building,  and  23  "  knows  of  a  roof  chamber  (?)  of  Aba/.,  in  connexion 
with  idolatrous  altars. 


THE  FALL  OF  SAMARIA  237 

possible  that  the  obscurity  of  our  account  comes  from  a  purpose 
to  conceal  the  facts.  Isaiah  must  have  protested,  but  the  protest 
has  not  come  down  to  us,  unless  it  be  in  the  denunciation  of  the 
idols  of  which  the  land  was  full.  And  it  must  be  remembered 
that  the  burden  upon  his  heart  was  the  moral,  rather  than  the 
religious,  obliquity  of  the  people.  This  moral  obliquity  was,  in 
fact,  defection  from  the  religion  of  Yahweh,  and  a  new  god 
more  or  less  did  not  much  alter  the  state  of  things. 


CHAPTER   XIII 

HEZEKIAH    AND    MANASSEH 

THE  fall  of  Samaria,  however  impressive  as  an  object-lesson, 
made  no  great  difference  in  the  political  condition  of  Judah. 
The  house  of  David  still  possessed  the  throne,  and  even  breathed 
more  freely  in  that  its  neighbour  was  no  longer  an  indepen- 
dent kingdom,  but  a  province  under  an  Assyrian  governor.  The 
revolt  of  720  B.C.,  to  which  allusion  has  already  been  made,  was  a 
part  of  the  general  uneasiness  in  Palestine.  Sargon,  as  we  know, 
that  year  made  a  campaign  in  which  Philistia  was  severely  pun- 
ished. Judah  seems  not  to  have  taken  part.  Ahaz  had,  in  fact, 
committed  himself  too  deeply  to  the  Assyrians  to  think  of  revolt 
so  soon.  The  vassalage  continued  throughout  his  reign,  and 
into  that  of  his  successor. 

The  situation  was,  however,  a  difficult  one  for  the  youthful 
Hezekiah,  who  came  to  the  throne  about  this  time.  The  tribute 
was  oppressive ;  Assyria  was  remote;  there  was  a  party  favourable 
to  Egypt,  looking  for  an  opportunity  to  revolt;  the  ancient  lib- 
erties of  Judah  were  doubtless  remembered,  and  made  the  watch- 
word of  a  party  of  zealots.  Hezekiah,  who  thus  inherited  a  sit- 
uation not  of  his  making,  seems  not  to  have  been  a  man  of  steady 
purpose,  and  Isaiah's  influence  seems  not  to  have  been  strong 
with  him  till  toward  the  close  of  his  life.  We  are  not  surprised 
that  the  reign  was  a  time  of  disturbances  and  reverses.  On  the 
whole  it  is  a  credit  to  Hezekiah  that  he  managed  to  keep  his 
throne  and  to  hand  in  on  to  his  successor.  Only  a  man  of 
genius  could  have  done  more,  and  Hezekiah  certainly  was  not 
a  man  of  genius. 

The  chronology  of  our  Hebrew  sources  is  clearly  at  fault  in 
regard  to  the  accession  of  Hezekiah.1  This  must  have  taken  place 

1  His  accession  is  dated  in  the  third  year  of  Hoshea  (2  Kings,  iS1),  and  the 
capture  of  Samaria  is  assigned  to  the  sixth  of  Hezekiah.  The  ordinary  He- 
brew method  of  computation  would  make  this  the  seventh,  so  that  here  is  a 
discrepancy  of  one  year  Now  the  invasion  of  Sennacherib  is  said  to  have 

238 


HEZEKIAH   AND    MANASSEH 

about  the  year  720.  Besides  the  faulty  chronology,  the  author 
gives  us  his  religious  estimate  of  the  king  in  extravagant  language. 
Sweeping  reforms  are  attributed  to  him — the  abolition  of  the 
High-places,  the  breaking  in  pieces  of  the  pillars,  the  cutting 
down  of  the  sacred  pole.  A  tormenting  question  always  arises  in 
considering  this  description — whether  the  author  has  not  been 
influenced  by  the  conceptions  of  a  later  time.  One  thing  stands 
out  prominently,  however,  because  it  so  evidently  could  not 
have  been  a  later  invention — Hezekiah  "  cut  in  pieces  the  cop- 
per serpent  which  Moses  made  ;  for  until  those  days  the  Sons  of 
Israel  kept  sacrificing  to  it,  and  it  was  called  Nehushtan." '  The 
clause  which  Moses  made,  refers  to  a  well-known  narrative  in  the 
account  of  the  wilderness  wandering.  Here  we  read  that  the 
people  were  bitten  by  serpents.  Moses  is  therefore  commanded 
to  make  a  copper  serpent,  and  raise  it  upon  a  pole.  Whoever  is 
bitten  and  looks  at  the  serpent  is  healed.  It  must  be  clear  that 
we  have  here  a  survival  from  the  primitive  totemism  of  Israel. 
The  serpent  race,  the  enemies  of  man,  are  worshipped  in  the 
image  which  presents  their  counterfeit  to  the  eye.  Sacrificing  to 
it,  which  is  here  affirmed,  is  exactly  the  mode  of  worship  de- 
scribed in  the  case  of  numerous  other  divinities.1 

Why  Moses  should  have  made  such  an  image  for  a  people  no- 
toriously prone  to  idolatry  is  a  question  that  need  not  be  dis- 
cussed. How  such  an  image,  if  made  by  Moses,  came  into  the 
Temple  is  also  difficult  to  conceive.  We  are  tempted,  therefore 
to  suppose  the  words  which  Moses  made  a  later  addition  to  the 
narrative  and  not  the  expression  of  Hezekiah's  belief  or  of  the 
belief  of  his  contemporaries.  In  that  case  we  must  treat  the 
Nehushtan  as  a  veritable  idol  of  the  house  of  Israel,  which  had 
been  worshipped  in  the  Temple  from  the  time  of  its  erection. 

taken  place  in  the  fourteenth  of  Hezekiah  (2  Kings,  18  IS).  But  the  capture 
of  Samaria  certainly  belongs  in  the  first  year  of  Sargon,  who  reigned  seven- 
teen years,  and  whose  successor  did  not  invade  Judah  till  his  third  campaign, 
which  must  have  been  his  third  year  at  the  very  earliest.  The  error  is  obvi- 
ous. Sennacherib's  invasion  must  be  dated  In  701,  and  both  of  the  Biblical 
statements  are  at  fault.  See  the  discussion  in  McCurdy,  History,  Prophecy, 
and  the  Monuments,  II,  p.  248  ff.  ;  Paton,  Early  History  of  Syria,  p.  247. 

*2  Kings,  1 8*.  The  account  of  Moses's  connexion  with  the  serpent  il 
found  in  Num.  21  *•*. 

*The  word  is  O'HEp'Q,  which  is  incorrectly  rendered  burning  incenst. 
Even  if  it  were  only  burning  incense,  it  would  be  an  act  of  worship. 


24O  OLD    TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

Serpent  worship  is  so  wide-spread  that  we  should  be  surprised 
not  to  find  traces  of  it  in  Israel.  We  know  of  a  Serpent's  Stone 
near  Jerusalem  which  was  the  site  of  a  sanctuary,1  and  this 
sanctuary  was  dedicated  to  Yahweh.  This  parallel  makes  us 
conclude  that  the  copper  serpent  of  the  Temple  was  also  a  symbol 
of  Yahweh.  If  this  be  so  it  may  be  attributed  to  Moses,  though 
in  a  different  way  from  that  taken  by  the  Hebrew  author ;  for 
Yahweh  was  introduced  to  Israel  by  Moses.  Probably  the  ser- 
pent was  thought  to  be  a  congenial  symbol  of  the  god  of  the 
lightning  J — and  that  in  the  desert  days  Yahweh  was  the  god  of 
the  lightning,  or  of  the  thunderstorm,  seems  well  made  out.* 

What  moved  Hezekiah  to  the  destruction  of  so  venerable  an 
object  ?  We  can  suppose  only  that  Isaiah  was  concerned  in  the 
matter.  The  prophet  was  an  enemy  of  idol  worship.  He  did 
not  think  highly  of  ritual  of  any  kind.  But  with  his  exalted  con- 
ception of  Yahweh,  the  attempt  to  represent  Him  under  animal 
forms  must  have  been  particularly  obnoxious.  His  sarcastic  al- 
lusion to  the  number  of  Judah's  idols  has  already  been  quoted. 
Other  passages  of  this  kind  are  not  easily  found  in  the  genuine 
prophecies  of  Isaiah.  In  general  he  is  absorbed  in  the  thought 
that  the  popular  religion  is  all  wrong  and  he  does  not  stop  to 
objurgate  individual  features  of  it.  One  thing  is  clear.  If  the 
removal  of  Nehushtan  from  the  Temple  was  due  to  Isaiah's  in- 
fluence it  must  have  taken  place  toward  the  close  of  Hezekiah's 
reign.  And  whatever  other  religious  reforms  were  undertaken 
belong  in  the  same  period.  We  have  no  evidence,  however, 
that  the  removal  of  the  High-places  was  a  part  of  Isaiah's  pro- 
gramme. 

The  Hebrew  historian  boasts  further  that  Hezekiah  "  rebelled 

1 1  Kings,  I  •      That  Adonijah  chose  a  sanctuary  for  his  festival  is  evident. 

1  On  the  serpent  and  the  lightning,  see  Baudissin,  Studien  zur  Semit- 
ischen  Rehgionsgeschichte,  I,  p.  264.  The  curious  will  find  a  collection  of 
material  concerning  serpent  worship  in  Deane,  The  Worship  of  the  Serpent 

(1833). 

*  I  have  laid  no  stress  on  the  Seraphim  of  Isaiah's  vision,  though  their 
name  is  identical  with  that  of  the  desert  serpents.  The  name  Nehushtan 
must  be  connected  with  nahash  (serpent).  The  occurrence  of  the  proper 
names  Nahash,  Nahshon,  and  Nehushta  among  the  Hebrews  is  readily  ac- 
counted for  if  the  serpent  was  an  object  of  worship,  but  not  otherwise. 
Speculations  on  the  Babylonian  origin  of  the  Nehushtan  may  be  read  in  the 
Entyclop.  Biblita,  tub  voce. 


HEZEKIAH   AND   MANASSEH  24! 

against  the  King  of  Assyria,  and  did  not  serve  him,  and  that  he 
smote  the  Philistines  to  Gaza  and  its  boundary,  both  watch-tower 
and  fortified  city."  l  The  tradition  has  here  preserved  only  one 
side  of  the  case.  Hezekiah  did  revolt  from  Assyria,  and  at  the 
time  of  the  revolt  he  gained  a  temporary  advantage  over  his 
natural  enemies  the  Philistines.  But  the  sequel  was  sadly  con- 
trary to  his  hopes.  With  the  help  of  the  book  of  Isaiah  and  the 
Assyrian  records  we  are  able  to  trace  the  course  of  events. 

The  seditions  at  the  accession  of  Sargon  have  already  been 
alluded  to,  and  some  account  has  been  given  of  this  king's  invasion 
of  Philistia  in  720.  This  campaign  is  perhaps  alluded  to  in  the 
little  poem  of  Isaiah  which  the  editor  dates  in  the  year  of  Ahaz's 
death : 

"  Rejoice  not,  all  Philistia, 
That  broken  is  the  rod  that  smote  thee  ; 
For  from  the  root  of  the  serpent  shall  issue  a  basilisk, 
And  its  fruit  shall  be  a  fiery  dragon. "  ' 

The  rod  that  smote  will  be  Shalmaneser,  and  the  basilisk  to  fol- 
low will  then  be  Sargon.  Certainly  the  character  of  Sargon  an- 
swers the  description.  He  himself  recounts  how  he  invaded 
Philistia,  besieged  and  captured  Ashdod  and  other  towns,  carry- 
ing off  the  inhabitants.  It  is  possible  to  suppose  that  Hezekiah, 
then  just  come  to  the  throne,  took  part  in  this  campaign,  paying 
off  Israel's  old  grudges  against  Philistia.  But  the  supposition 
presents  some  difficulties,  and  it  seems  on  the  whole  more  likely 
that  Hezekiah's  Philistine  campaign  belongs  in  the  time  of 
Sennacherib. 

A  second  expedition  of  Sargon  is  recorded  nearly  ten  years 
after  the  king's  accession.  During  these  years  Merodach-Baladan 
of  Babylon  was  a  thorn  in  the  side  of  Assyria.  He  threw  off  the 
Assyrian  suzerainty  and  was  able  to  maintain  himself  against  the 
efforts  of  Sargon.  It  need  hardly  be  said  that  he  strained  every 
nerve  to  stir  up  revolt  in  the  other  dependencies  of  the  empire. 
His  embassy  to  Hezekiah,  of  which  the  Biblical  writer  makes 

1  2  Kings,  18  T '  ,  Kittel  refers  the  two  verses  to  different  sources,  on  what 
grounds  is  not  very  clear. 

1  Isaiah,  14  **•**.  On  the  date  see  Cheyne,  Introduction  to  Isaiah,  and  his 
edition  of  the  text.  Recent  commentators  are  inclined  to  assign  the  piece  to 
a  much  later  time 


242  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

mention,1  can  be  accounted  for  as  an  attempt  to  enlist  Judah  in 
Buch  an  enterprise.  We  may  suppose  that  Hezekiah  resisted  the 
temptation  at  this  time.  But  that  he  coquetted  with  the  dis- 
tinguished stranger  is  indicated  by  Sargon,  who  accuses  Judah, 
along  with  Edom,  Moab,  and  Philistia,  of  sending  presents  to 
Pharaoh,  King  of  Egypt,  "  a  prince  who  could  not  save  them," 
inviting  him  to  an  alliance.  The  disorganised  condition  of 
Egypt  at  the  time  has  caused  some  to  doubt  the  possibility  of  its 
being  prominent  in  such  a  movement.  But  the  language  inti- 
mates that  the  Palestinian  states  were  ready  to  revolt — being 
aware  of  the  troubles  of  Assyria  in  the  East — even  without  sub- 
stantial help  from  Egypt.  In  the  year  711  Sargon  sent  a  flying 
column  against  Ashdod  and  speedily  reduced  it  to  submission. 
In  the  year  the  Tartan  came  to  Ashdod,  we  are  told,  Isaiah  pre- 
dicted the  defeat  of  Ethiopia  and  the  captivity  of  its  people. 
The  prophet  had  aroused  attention  by  going  barefoot  and  lightly 
clad  for  some  time  before  this  event,  and  he  was  now  moved  to  de- 
clare :  "So  shall  the  king  of  Assyria  carry  away  the  captives  of 
Egypt  and  the  exiles  of  Ethiopia,  young  and  old,  naked  and  bare- 
foot, with  bodies  exposed."  He  adds  that  the  people  of  Judah 
will  say:  "Truly,  if  such  is  the  plight  of  those  to  whom  we 
looked,  and  to  whom  we  fled  for  help  to  obtain  safety  from  the 
king  of  Assyria,  how  can  we  ourselves  hope  to  escape."1 

Isaiah  dissuaded  from  an  alliance  with  Egypt  and  anticipated 
an  Assyrian  invasion  of  that  country.  Just  yet  matters  did 
not  proceed  so  far.  Hezekiah  was  able  to  save  his  face,  and  per- 
haps gave  support  to  the  Assyrian  expedition.  Merodach-Baladan 
was,  not  long  after  this,  defeated  and  driven  from  Babylon.  His 
brief  success  a  few  years  later  probably  had  no  influence  on  the 
fortunes  of  Judah. 

The  Egyptians,  however,  were  not  idle,  and  at  the  next  change 
in  the  Assyrian  throne  trouble  began  to  brew.  The  allied  kings 
(for  Egypt  was  now  divided  into  several  petty  states)  succeeded 
in  enlisting  the  Palestinian  peoples  in  an  effort  for  freedom. 
The  people  of  Ekron  dethroned  their  king,  Padi,  because  he  re- 
fused to  join  the  movement,  and  delivered  him  over  to  Hezekiah, 

1  2  Kings,  20"-",  which  is  repeated  with  some  changes  in  Isaiah,  39.  The 
section  is  of  late  date,  apparently  taken  from  a  life  of  Isaiah. 

f  Isaiah,  20 8.  I  have  adopted  Cheyne's  translation  in  the  edition  of  Haupt 
(polychrome).  Tartan  is  the  title  of  the  Assyrian  general. 


HEZEKIAH   AND    MANASSEH  243 

who  kept  him  imprisoned  at  Jerusalem.  Sennacherib,  who  had 
succeeded  Sargon  in  705,  invaded  Syria  in  his  third  campaign, 
which  would  be  701.  He  first  conquered  Sidon,  where  he  placed 
a  new  king  upon  the  throne.  This  blow  was  enough  to  satisfy 
some  of  the  conspirators,  and  they  hastened  (Moab  and  Ammon 
are  included)  to  make  their  submission.  But  Philistia  and  Judah 
held  out.  The  Egyptians  stood  by  their  engagements  so  far  as  to 
send  an  army  to  the  relief  of  Ekron.  But  in  a  battle  fought  at 
Eltekeh1  they  received  a  decided  check.  Ekron  was  obliged 
to  surrender,  and  the  popular  leaders  were  impaled  outside  the 
walls.  It  was  then  Judah's  turn.  Hezekiah  was  compelled  to 
deliver  up  his  prisoner,  who  was  again  set  in  honour  on  his  throne. 
The  country  was  overrun  by  the  Assyrians,  forty-six  walled  towns 
suffered  the  horrors  of  siege  and  sack,  over  two  hundred  thousand 
people  were  carried  into  slavery,  an  enormous  booty  fell  into  the 
hands  of  the  invader,  Jerusalem  itself  was  invested,  though  not 
regularly  besieged.  Hezekiah  was  obliged  to  pay  a  heavy  fine 
and  to  send  his  daughters  and  concubines  to  Nineveh.  Finally, 
his  kingdom  was  reduced  in  size,  a  large  part  of  his  territory 
being  taken  away  and  added  to  adjoining  states. 

This  is  Sennacherib's  account.1  It  is  substantially  confirmed 
by  a  paragraph  in  the  book  of  Kings:  "In  the  fourteenth  year 
of  King  Hezekiah  came  up  Sennacherib,  king  of  Assyria,  against 
all  the  fortified  cities  of  Judah.  And  Hezekiah  sent  to  the  king 
of  Assyria  at  Lachish,  saying:  I  have  sinned;  turn  from  me! 
Whatever  thou  shalt  lay  upon  me  I  will  bear.  So  the  king  of 
Assyria  laid  upon  him  three  hundred  talents  of  silver  and  thirty 
talents  of  gold.  So  Hezekiah  gave  him  all  the  silver  that  was  in 
the  House  of  Yahweh  and  in  the  palace  treasury.  At  that  time 
Hezekiah  stripped  the  doors  of  the  Temple  and  the  pillars  of 
the  metal  with  which  he  himself  had  overlaid  them  and  sent  it  to 
the  king  of  Assyria. ' '  * 

The  inaccuracy  of  the  date  in  this  account  need  not  detain  us. 

1The  town  is  mentioned  among  those  belonging  to  the  southern  settlement 
of  the  tribe  of  Dan,  Josh.  19  **. 

1  Ktihnschr.  Bibliothek,  II,  pp.  91-97. 

* 2  Kings,  18  1J-".  Sennacherib  states  the  sum  exacted  to  be  thirty  talents 
of  gold  and  rig ht  hundred  of  silver.  The  discrepancy  may  have  arisen  from 
a  confusion  of  the  light  and  heavy  talent.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  con- 
struction of  v.  '•  is  awkward,  and  that  some  other  king  was  probably  orig- 
inally named  as  the  decorator  of  the  Temple. 


244  OLD  TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

Otherwise,  the  text  is  in  agreement  with  the  Assyrian  claims, 
and  its  statements  are  not  such  as  would  be  invented  by  a  Judaite 
writer.  The  wonder  was  that  Sennacherib  stopped  when  he  did, 
and  this  it  is  which  impressed  the  contemporary  witnesses  of  the 
event.  Why  did  not  the  cruel  and  revengeful  monarch  go  on  with 
the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  take  the  city,  and  give  it  over  to  sack  ? 
Perhaps  the  abject  submission  of  Hezekiah  is  sufficient  to  answer 
the  question,  especially  as  Jerusalem  was  a  stronghold  whose  capt- 
ure would  call  for  large  expenditure  of  time  and  men.  The  As- 
syrian sources  throw  no  light  on  the  subject.  Hebrew  tradition 
has  an  answer  which  we  now  read  both  in  the  book  of  Kings  and 
in  the  book  of  Isaiah.1  Two  separate  traditions  seem  here  to  have 
coalesced.  One  of  these  tells  how  the  king  sent  one  of  his  chief 
officers1 — Rab-shakeh  is  the  Assyrian  title — from  Lachish  which  he 
was  besieging,  to  Jerusalem.  His  purpose  is  to  stir  up  the  people 
against  Hezekiah.  This  he  does  by  scoffing  openly  at  Hezekiah's 
confidence  in  Egypt  and  in  Yahweh.  Egypt  he  compares  (not 
ineptly)  to  a  deceitful  staff  which  breaks  when  one  leans  upon  it, 
to  the  pain  and  hurt  of  its  bearer.  As  for  the  trust  in  Yahweh  he 
claims  that  it  is  by  command  of  Yahweh  that  he  himself  has  in- 
vaded the  country.*  The  request  of  Hezekiah's  officers  that  the 
colloquy  may  be  carried  on  in  a  language  unfamiliar  to  the  lis- 
teners on  the  wall  is  disregarded,  and  the  Assyrian  makes  a  direct 
appeal  to  the  Jerusalemites  against  their  king.  Isaiah's  advice, 
long  disregarded,  now  becomes  important.  We  may  well  suppose 
that  the  clear-headed  prophet  commanded  the  respect  of  his  king. 
In  response  to  Hezekiah's  message  the  promise  of  Yahweh  is 
given  :  "  Fear  not  for  the  words  which  thou  hast  heard,  where- 
with the  servants  of  the  King  of  Assyria  have  taunted  me.  I  am 
about  to  put  a  spirit  into  him,  so  that  he  shall  hear  a  rumour  and 
return  to  his  own  land,  and  I  will  cause  him  to  fall  by  the  sword." 
From  the  following  verses  we  understand  that  the  spirit  is  a  spirit 

*2  Kings,  i817-i9ST,  and  Isaiah,  36,  37,  with  some  differences  of  text. 

1  He  alone  is  mentioned  in  Isaiah,  36.  The  author  of  Kings  has  expanded 
by  adding  the  Tartan  (general-in-chief)  and  the  Rabsaris  (chief  eunuch  ?). 
On  the  title  Rab-shakeh  see  Zimmern  in  the  Zeitsch.  der  D.  M.  G.,  LIIL, 
p.  116  ff. 

*  The  reference  to  Hezekiah's  reforms,  and  the  enumeration  of  the  gods 
which  the  Assyrians  have  overcome  may  be  attributed  to  the  Hebrew  writer 
(see  Cheyne's  translation  in  the  Polychrome  Bible).  But  the  claim  that 
Yahweh  was  on  the  side  of  the  invader  is  not  improbable. 


HEZEKIAH  AND   MANASSEH  245 

of  panic,  and  that  the  report  is  a  report  of  the  Ethiopian  ap- 
proach. But  it  is  possible  that  the  earliest  writer  had  in  mind 
reports  of  rebellion  in  the  eastern  provinces.  Something  of  this 
kind  seems  to  have  affected  Sennacherib's  movements.  The  as- 
sassination of  the  king,  to  which  the  author  also  alludes  as  a  ful- 
filment of  the  prediction,  is  known  not  to  have  taken  place  for 
a  number  of  years. 

A  duplicate  tradition  follows,  in  which  the  message  of  Senna- 
cherib is  put  in  the  form  of  an  unsealed  (and  therefore  insulting) 
letter,  and  in  answer  to  Hezekiah's  prayers  Isaiah  is  sent  to  him 
with  the  promise  that  the  Assyrians  shall  not  besiege  the  city. 
The  sequel  is  the  sudden  destruction  of  the  Assyrian  army,  185,- 
ooo  soldiers  being  cut  off  in  a  single  night.  The  two  accounts 
seem  to  refer  to  the  same  event.  According  to  one  the  sudden 
and  unexpected  retreat  of  the  Assyrians  was  due  to  panic  arising 
from  rumours  of  disaffection  or  invasion.  According  to  the  other 
it  was  due  to  an  act  of  God. 

We  have  a  third  tradition,  given  by  Herodotus,  from  Egyptian 
sources.  This  is  to  the  effect  that  Sennacherib's  army,  having  ad- 
vanced as.  far  as  Pelusium,  was  compelled  to  retreat  by  an  army 
of  mice,  who  gnawed  the  thongs  of  quivers  and  the  strings  of 
bows,  so  that  the  soldiers  were  defenceless,  and  retreat  was  neces- 
sary. The  well-known  connexion  of  the  mouse  with  the  pestilence 
argues  in  favour  of  making  this  account  refer  to  the  event  which 
the  Hebrew  author  represents  as  a  sudden  destruction  of  the 
army.  We  cannot  suppose,  however,  that  the  Hebrew  author 
borrowed  from  the  Egyptian  tradition,  for  the  equation  of  the 
mice  and  the  pestilence  would  be  unfamiliar  to  him.  It  is  equally 
improbable  that  the  Egyptian  tradition  would  consciously  reduce 
the  pestilence  to  terms  of  mice.  All  that  is  left  to  us  is  to  admit 
that  the  suddenness  of  Sennacherib's  return  to  Nineveh,  was  ac- 
counted for  in  the  popular  mind  in  three  ways — the  king's  panic, 
the  mice,  and  the  pestilence.1  The  deliverance  can  hardly  have 
been  so  signal  as  the  narrative  assumes.  Had  the  Assyrian  army 
been  literally  destroyed  by  a  pestilence,  the  whole  of  Palestine 
would  have  fallen  away  afresh,  or  else  have  come  into  the  hands  of 
the  Egyptians. 

1  Divine  interposition  was  also  assumed  by  the  Egyptians,  who  regarded 
the  mice  as  the  army  of  their  god,  Horus — so,  at   least,  Wiedejoaap 
prets  the  statue  which  Herodotus  connects  with  this  event. 


246  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY. 

It  is  held  by  some  scholars  that  Sennacherib  made  another  ex- 
pedition to  the  west,  especially  directed  against  Egypt,  and  that 
the  Biblical  accounts  have  united  traditions  which  concern  the 
two  invasions.1  The  indications  of  the  inscriptions  seem  hardly 
definite  enough  to  sustain  the  hypothesis,  and  it  does  not  seem 
likely  that  Hezekiah  would  revolt  again  after  the  severe  lesson  he 
had  received. 

We  are  able  to  associate  some  of  Isaiah's  most  vigorous  dis- 
courses with  the  campaign  of  Sennacherib,  and  thus  to  form 
some  idea  of  the  state  of  things  in  Jerusalem  at  the  time.  The 
prophet  does  not  hesitate  to  repeat  his  earlier  lament  over  the 
fall  of  Samaria  and  make  it  the  text  for  a  sharp  arraignment  of 
his  own  people ;  the  implication  being  that  the  sinfulness  of  Jeru- 
salem will  bring  about  the  same  punishment  which  has  been  visited 
upon  the  sister  city.  And  as  in  the  former  case  the  sins  were  not 
ritual  offences  but  offences  against  common  morality,  so  it  is  here: 

"  These  also  stagger  with  wine 

And  reel  with  strong  drink  : 
Priest  and  prophet 

They  stagger  with  strong  drink, 
They  are  overcome  by  wine, 

They  stagger  with  strong  drink. 
They  reel  in  their  vision, 

They  totter  when  giving  judgment. 
All  tables  are  full  of  vomit, 

Filth — no  end." 

It  goes  with  this  that  these  influential  classes  are  impervious  to 
correction.  They  regard  the  prophet  as  a  doddering  idiot  fit  to 
talk  gibberish  to  children.  This  scoffing  tone  is  not  simply  the 
result  of  their  abandoned  drunkenness.  They  are  inflated  with  the 
false  confidence  of  those  who  trust  in  political  measures.  Whatever 
may  come  they  feel  that  they  have  taken  effective  precautions : 

"  We  have  entered  into  a  treaty  with  death 
And  with  Sheol  we  have  made  a  compact ; 

When  the  scourging  scourge  comes  on 
It  shall  not  reach  us  ; 

For  we  have  made  a  lie  our  trust 

And  in  falsehood  we  have  taken  refuge."1 

1  Winckler  in  his  Alttestamentlicht  Untersuchungen,  p.  29  ff .  His  hy- 
pothesis is  accepted  by  Benzinger  in  the  Handkommentar. 

1  Isaiah,  a8I6f.     The  preceding  quotation  is  from  28' ';  compare  also  5  n. 


HEZEKIAH  AND   MANASSEH  247 

The  oriental  delight  in  finesse  has  never  been  better  expressed. 
Shrewdness  and  subtlety  are  the  weapons  with  which  they  think 
to  fight  their  battles.  Doubtless  the  fine  scheme  of  an  alliance 
among  the  western  nations  and  a  united  effort  against  Assyria 
was  maturing.  Under  the  influence  of  the  party  favourable  to 
Egypt,  Hezekiah  has  sent  an  embassy  to  that  country  in  order 
to  perfect  the  alliance.  Through  the  desert  which  lies  between 
them  and  their  destination,  "  they  carry  their  goods  on  the  backs 
of  asses,  and  their  treasures  on  the  humps  of  camels  to  a  people 
that  cannot  profit,  whose  help  is  idle  and  vain."1  This  embassy 
has  been  kept  secret  from  the  prophet  and  has  taken  the  longer 
and  more  toilsome  route  through  the  desert  so  as  not  to  attract 
the  notice  of  the  Assyrian  officials  in  Philistia.  But  Isaiah  has 
discovered  it  and  heaps  his  scorn  upon  it.  Not  scorn  only  but 
open  rebuke : 

"  Woe  to  the  rebellious  sons,  saith  Yahweh  ; 
Who  carry  out  a  plan  that  is  none  of  mine. 
Who  go  down  to  Egypt  but  have  not  asked  of  me, 
To  flee  to  the  stronghold  of  Pharaoh, 

And  to  take  refuge  in  the  shadow  of  Egypt 
But  the  stronghold  shall  be  your  shame, 

And  the  refuge  your  confusion. 
Though  his  princes  be  in  Zoan, 
And  his  ambassadors  in  Hanes — 
Every  one  shall  be  put  to  shame  by  a  people  that  does  not  help."  f 

The  end  of  all  their  pains  will  be  to  see  the  structure  so  labori- 
ously raised  fall  in  hopeless  ruin:  "like  a  bulge  caused  by  a 
breach  in  a  lofty  wall,  ready  to  fall  in  an  instant,  and  to  which 
breaking  comes  full  suddenly — as  one  dashes  an  earthen  pitcher 
to  pieces  shattering  it  ruthlessly."  * 

1  Isaiah,  30*.  Chapter  18  seems  to  imply  that  the  Ethiopians  responded  to 
the  overtures,  sending  an  embassy  in  turn. 

1  Isaiah,  30  >-*.  I  have  left  out  an  unessential  couplet,  and  have  followed 
Cheyne's  text.  Some  scholars  connect  these  discourses  with  Sargon's  cam- 
paign of  711. 

1  In  interpreting  these  discourses,  I  have  assumed  that  Egypt  is  the  nation 
intended  by  the  Hebrew  word  Afifraim.  Winckler  supposes  that  a  North 
Arabian  kingdom  of  Afufri,  of  which  we  have  traces  in  the  Assyrian  inscrip- 
tions, is  the  country  intended.  While  some  of  the  Biblical  passages  which 
now  speak  ot  Egypt  may  have  originally  referred  to  such  a  district  i 


248  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

In  an  earlier  crisis  we  have  seen  Isaiah  dissuading  from  foreign 
alliances,  and  urging  that  attention  should  be  paid  to  internal 
reform.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  his  principle  was  any 
different  in  this  later  struggle.  The  rebuker  of  counsellors  and 
courtiers  was  not  the  spokesman  of  a  mere  political  party.  To 
do  right  was  the  only  policy  he  cared  to  urge.  Yahweh  is  a 
God  of  justice.  He  will  apply  the  standard  of  righteousness  to 
Jerusalem  as  one  holds  a  plumb-line  to  a  wall.1  Whatever  does 
not  conform  to  this  standard  shall  be  swept  away.  The  true 
policy  of  people  and  rulers  is  to  do  right,  trusting  in  the  righteous- 
ness of  Yahweh  :  "  By  repenting  and  remaining  quiet  you  shall 
be  delivered  ;  in  resting  and  in  trusting  shall  your  strength  con- 
sist." ' 

The  restless  ambition  of  the  politicians  found  the  counsel  in- 
sipid. They  were  for  a  vigorous  foreign  policy,  leaving  "  parish 
concerns  ' '  to  take  care  of  themselves.  Isaiah  saw  that  this  was 
to  invite  calamity,  and  he  foresaw  the  calamity  in  the  shape  of 
an  Assyrian  invasion.  In  one  discourse  we  still  read  the  woe 
pronounced  in  view  of  the  impending  siege.3  In  another  we 
have  a  description  of  the  invading  army  making  its  way  from  the 
north  along  the  road  familiar  to  all  Israelites.  The  successive 
camping  places  are  named  till  the  enemy  stands  on  the  ridge  just 
north  of  Jerusalem,  and  shakes  his  fist  at  the  daughter  of  Zion.* 
In  this  anticipation  the  prophet  takes  up  the  thought  of  Amos. 
Yahweh  is  God  of  the  whole  earth  and  He  uses  the  nations  to 
carry  out  His  plan.  Isaiah  adds  that  the  human  instrument  is 
not  conscious  that  he  is  carrying  out  Yahweh's  plan ;  he  is  fol- 
lowing his  own  designs  and  knows  nothing  further  : 

Ah,  Assyrian,  rod  of  my  wrath, 

And  staff  of  my  indignation  ! 

Against  a  godless  nation  do  I  send  him, 

And  against  the  objects  of  my  wrath  I  give  him  command ; 

bia,  this  does  not  seem  to  be  the  case  with  those  we  have  been  considering. 
A  full  presentation  of  the  case  for  Mufri  may  be  found  in  the  article  "  Miz- 
raim  "  in  the  Encyclop.  Biblica,  Vol.  III. 

1  Isaiah,  28  ".    The  figure  is  not  original  with  Isaiah,  cf.  Amos,  7 '-'. 

1  Isaiah,  30". 

1  Isaiah,  29,  which  is  obscure  in  places  but  which  seems  to  assert  that  the 
siege  will  come  after  one  year  more. 

*  Isaiah,  lo1*-".  The  prediction  was  not  literally  fulfilled,  whether  we 
refer  it  to  B.C.  721  or  701. 


MEZEKIAH  AND   MANASSEH  249 

To  take  spoil  and  to  seize  booty, 

And  to  tread  them  down  like  mire  of  the  street. 

But  he  does  not  so  imagine 

And  his  mind  reckons  not  so ; 

But  only  to  destroy  is  in  his  mind, 

And  to  cut  off  nations  not  a  few." ' 

That  in  fact  Assyria  is  carrying  out  the  plan  of  Yahweh  is 
enough  for  the  prophet  to  know,  and  this  is  what  he  is  here  con- 
tent to  affirm.  It  is  evident,  however,  that  if  the  purpose  of  the 
Assyrian  is  altogether  selfish,  he  in  turn  will  become  obnoxious 
to  the  divine  justice,  and  that  his  punishment  will  follow  in  due 
time.  This  thought,  however,  seems  to  have  come  only  on  later 
reflection. 

Isaiah's  anticipation  was  fulfilled,  as  we  are  abundantly  certified 
by  Sennacherib's  description  of  his  campaign.  The  preacher  of 
righteousness  did  not  fail  to  improve  the  occasion.  His  dis- 
course gives  a  vivid  picture  of  the  country  at  the  height  of  the 
invasion.  The  land  was  desolated,  the  cities  burned  with  fire, 
the  crops  were  devoured  by  strangers,  Jerusalem  was  left  a  wreck, 
as  the  winter  shows  those  frail  shelters  erected  for  the  watchmen 
of  the  vineyards  now  falling  to  pieces. 

It  is  a  common  experience,  however,  that  signal  judgments  of 
God  often  bewilder  or  harden  rather  than  humble  and  convert 
the  evil-doers.  So  it  was  in  Jerusalem.  In  the  very  face  of  the 
calamity  some  gave  themselves  up  to  feasting  and  revelry.  The 
city  was  a  tumultuous  city,  a  joyous  town ;  the  people  snatched  at 
the  last  opportunity  for  sensuous  enjoyment — to-morrow  we  die 
was  their  thought.*  Others,  to  be  sure,  resorted  to  religious  ex- 
ercises in  the  hope  that  Yahweh  might  be  pacified.  The  altars 
streamed  with  blood  ;  burnt  offerings  of  rams  and  the  fat  of  fed 
beasts  ascended  in  constant  clouds  of  smoke  ;  the  Temple  courts 
were  thronged  with  crowds  who  came  to  see  the  face  of  Yahweh. 
But  in  the  prophet's  eyes  all  this  indicates  persistence  in  the  old 
error.  All  this  ritual  service  is  vain.  Yahweh  is  weary  of  it: 
"  My  soul  hates  your  New  Moons  and  your  set  feasts.  .  .  . 
When  you  spread  out  your  hands  I  hide  my  eyes  from  you ; 
when  you  multiply  prayers  I  do  not  hear."  The  only  accept- 

1  Isaiah,  io*-T. 

1  Isaiah,  22.  The  chapter  describes  the  bustle  in  the  town  in  face  of  tb» 
expected  siege,  notice  vv  *•". 


2$C  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

able  service  is  righteousness.  These  worshippers  instead  of  pre- 
senting the  blood  that  will  propitiate,  only  bring  hands  red  with 
crime.  How  can  Yahweh  fail  to  see  what  is  going  on  ?  The 
judges  decide  against  the  poor,  the  leaders  lead  the  people  astray ; 
instead  of  being  correctors  of  crime  they  are  its  accomplices : 
"  Everyone  loves  a  bribe  and  seeks  after  baksheesh  ;  the  case  of 
the  widow  does  not  come  before  them,  they  do  not  give  judg- 
ment for  the  fatherless."  1 

Did  Isaiah  anticipate  the  complete  destruction  of  Judah  ?  We 
can  hardly  suppose  so,  though  some  things  which  he  has  left  on 
record  seem  to  indicate  that  he  did.  In  the  passages  we  have 
been  considering  he  fixes  his  eye  on  the  great  fact  that  Yahweh 
is  about  to  punish  evil-doers.  The  weight  of  the  blow  will  fall 
on  His  adversaries.  Absorbed  in  this  thought  the  prophet  does 
not  pause  to  consider  a  problem  which  afterward  became  acute, 
the  problem  of  the  destruction  of  the  righteous  with  the  wicked. 
Among  the  Judaites  carried  into  slavery  by  Sennacherib  must 
have  been  many  to  whom  Isaiah's  condemnation  did  not  apply. 
The  destroyer  of  a  city  by  siege  or  storm  does  not  discriminate 
between  the  righteous  and  the  wicked.  His  sword  devours  one 
as  well  as  the  other.  A  Pentateuchal  writer,  apparently  not 
much  later  than  Isaiah,  shows  how  some  minds  were  already  be- 
ginning to  be  exercised  by  this  problem.  He  sets  forth  the  fact 
that  if  Sodom  is  destroyed,  the  few  righteous  men  who  may  be 
sojourning  in  it  will  meet  an  undeserved  fate,  and  this  does  not 
accord  with  the  justice  of  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth.*  No  such 
difficulty  seems  to  have  been  present  to  the  mind  of  Isaiah. 

The  tendency  of  the  earlier  prophets  to  deal  with  the  nation 
as  a  whole  here  shows  itself.  But  there  is  evidence  that  Isaiah 
sometimes  advanced  beyond  this  point  of  view.  His  general 
theory  of  his  work  is  strikingly  set  forth  in  the  account  of  his 
inaugural  vision,  where  he  receives  the  command:  "  Go  and  say 
to  this  people  :  Hear  on,  but  do  not  understand ;  see  on,  but  do 
not  perceive  !  Make  the  people's  mind  stupid  and  their  ears 
dull,  and  plaster  up  their  eyes — lest  they  see  with  their  eyes  and 

1  Isaiah,  I  ,  from  which  I  have  quoted  the  greater  part  of  this  description, 
it  now  arranged  as  a  single  discourse,  though  perhaps  combining  what  was 
spoken  at  different  times.  The  situation  which  it  so  vividly  describes  can 
scarcely  be  any  but  the  one  at  Sennacherib's  invasion. 

•Gen.  iS**. 


HEZEKIAH  AND   MANASSEH  2$  I 

hear  with  their  ears,  and  their  mind  apprehend  and  their  health 
be  restored."  *  We  can  interpret  this  language  in  only  one  way 
— the  prophetic  message  would  harden  the  people,  and  thereby 
make  the  impending  destruction  only  the  more  certain.  As  if  to 
leave  no  doubt  on  this  score,  the  prophet  declares  that  his  mis- 
sion would  last  till  the  land  should  be  wasted  without  inhabitant, 
and  adds  :  "  Even  were  there  left  in  it  a  tenth  part,  this  also 
must  be  consumed  like  a  terebinth  or  an  oak  of  which,  when  it  is 
felled,  only  a  stump  remains." J  The  stump  is  not  here  the  source 
of  new  life ;  it  is  the  dead  and  useless  fragment  which  must  be 
dug  up  and  burned  to  get  it  out  of  the  way.  The  destruction  of 
the  nation  must  be  complete. 

And  yet — and  yet  there  are  the  passages  concerning  the  rem- 
nant, and  these  show  that  the  hope  of  the  believer  refused  to  ac- 
cept so  sweeping  a  statement.  The  judgment  will  be  something 
more  than  a  vindication  of  the  divine  justice.  It  will  result  in, 
or  it  will  be  followed  by,  a  restitution.  Yahweh  will  give  His 
people  officers  like  those  of  the  good  old  days,  so  that  Zion  may 
again  be  called  a  city  of  right.  More  striking  is  the  word 
spoken  out  of  the  midst  of  the  scathing  denunciation  we  have 
already  considered,  dating  it  in  the  time  when  conspiracy  was 
rife:  "Behold  I  lay  in  Zion  a  stone,  a  tried  stone,  a  precious 
foundation  stone;  he  who  trusts  shall  not  be  moved."1  The 
confidence  of  the  prophet  that  there  would  be  some  to  trust  in 
Yahweh,  inspired  him  in  naming  his  son — perhaps  his  first-born 
— A-remnant-will-turn.  And  this  remnant  began  to  realise  its 
mission  during  Isaiah's  own  life,  for  he  had  a  band  of  disciples 
to  whose  keeping  he  could  intrust  the  message  he  had  received.* 

The  prophet's  faith  came  out  most  fully  at  the  hour  of  disaster. 

'Isaiah,  6*r.  That  the  actual  result  of  the  preaching  shows  what  the 
divine  purpose  was  in  commissioning  the  preacher,  is  quite  in  accord  with 
Biblical  thought. 

'Isaiah,  6U.  Some  copyist,  remembering  the  word  of  Job  (14  '•*)  which 
pictures  the  stump  as  sprouting  again,  has  inserted  a  clause  in  this  passage 
to  make  it  teach  the  same  lesson.  But  the  insertion  was  made  so  late  that 
it  had  not  become  universally  current  when  the  Greek  translation  was  made. 

1  Isaiah,  28  u — text  of  Cheyne  and  others. 

4  Isaiah,  8  w.  In  the  same  connexion  the  prophet  declares  that  he  and  his 
sons  are  signs  of  what  shall  come  to  Israel.  He  alludes  to  the  significance 
of  his  own  name,  "  Deliverance-of-  Yahweh,"  which  of  course  is  hopeful  for 
the  future. 


2$2  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

He  had  been  most  pessimistic  when  the  people  were  most  confi- 
dent, but  when  the  crisis  came  he  was  the  one  most  confident. 
He  was  sure  that  Jerusalem  would  not  be  given  over  to  sack,  and 
possibly  even  went  so  far  as  to  expect  the  destruction  of  Assyria 
in  immediate  sequence  to  the  invasion  of  Palestine.  The  im- 
pregnability of  Zion  as  a  fortress  could  hardly  be  the  ground  of 
such  confidence.  It  was  a  religious  faith  that  Yahweh  was  in 
the  midst  of  His  people,  though  they  were  so  unworthy. 

That  Yahweh  would  deliver  His  city,  that  He  would  punish 
the  pride  of  Assyria,  that  He  would  bring  back  the  good  old 
times — a  very  rudimentary  Messianic  faith  is  this,  but  it  is  al- 
most all  that  we  can  attribute  to  Isaiah.  We  may  suppose  that 
the  remnant  who  should  repent,  presented  itself  to  his  mind  as  a 
nation  with  a  monarch  at  its  head.  This  monarch  would  natu- 
rally be  of  the  line  of  David.  His  rule  would  be  distinguished 
by  its  justice,  for  the  function  of  the  king  is  to  secure  justice, 
protecting  the  poor  from  the  rapacious  nobles.  Commanding 
the  favour  of  Yahweh,  such  a  reign  would  be  a  time  of  external 
peace  and  internal  prosperity.  So  much  is  logically  implied  in 
the  hope  of  the  remnant,  and  some  such  picture  of  the  future 
may  have  been  drawn  by  the  prophet.  But  the  various  Mes- 
sianic prophecies  which  we  now  read  in  his  book  have  been 
inserted  there  by  later  hands.1 

In  the  hope  that  we  may  find  additional  light  on  the  period, 
we  turn  to  the  prophet  Micah,  whom  we  know  from  a  passage  of 
Jeremiah  to  have  been  a  contemporary  of  Hezekiah.*  The  little 
book  which  has  come  down  to  us  under  his  name  is,  however, 
only  in  part  from  his  own  hand,  and  that  part  has  been  disfigured 
by  the  errors  of  copyists.  So  far  as  we  can  use  it  with  confi- 
dence, we  find  that  it  describes  the  state  of  things  which  is  made 
known  to  us  by  Isaiah.  The  opening  discourse  was  spoken  in 
full  view  of  the  catastrophe  which  threatened  Samaria,  and  at  a 
time  when  the  author  expected  the  same  fate  to  overtake  Jerusa- 
lem. As  in  the  earlier  prophets,  the  reason  is  found  in  the  sin- 
fulness  of  the  people.  No  more  severe  indictment  against  the 
upper  classes  can  be  found  than  we  here  read  :  "  Hear,  ye  chiefs 
of  Jacob  and  ye  judges  of  the  house  of  Israel !  You  surely 

1  For  eTample,  the  fine  description  of  the  ideal  king  in   n  1"8. 
1  Jer.  26lsf  gives  this  information,  citing  the  most  strikingof  Micah's  pre- 
dictions in  order  to  commend  the  tolerance  of  Hezekiah. 


HEZEKIAH   AND   MANASSEH  253 

ought  to  know  what  is  just !  Yet  you  hate  good  and  love  evil ; 
you  who  devour  the  flesh  of  my  people,  tear  their  skin  from 
them,  and  break  their  bones."  *  This  is  the  old  story  of  rapacity 
as  we  read  it  in  Amos,  Hosea,  and  Isaiah.  The  only  thing  origi- 
nal in  Micah  is  the  bitterness  of  the  polemic  against  the  popular 
prophets.  The  opposition  of  different  sets  of  prophets  to  each 
other  is  no  new  thing  ;  it  is  at  least  as  old  as  the  time  of  Ahab, 
where  Micaiah  takes  a  position  contradicting  that  of  the  majority, 
and  where  he  supposes  them  deceived  by  a  lying  spirit.  But  our 
Micah  has  to  contend  with  bitter  and  unscrupulous  opposition, 
from  prophets  who  have  become  mere  time  servers,  pandering  to 
the  wishes  of  the  community:  "Thus  says  Yahweh  against  the 
prophets  who  cause  my  people  to  err,  who,  when  they  get  some- 
thing to  eat,  say  all  is  well,  but  declare  a  crusade  against  whoever 
does  not  put  bread  into  their  mouths."  And  with  fine  irony  he 
says  in  another  place  that  if  one  comes  claiming  the  spirit  and 
prophesying  of  wine  and  strong  drink  he  will  be  an  acceptable 
prophet.* 

We  may  suppose  that  Micah,  living  in  a  country  district,  real- 
ised more  vividly  than  Isaiah  the  corruption  of  the  leading 
classes.  He  is  also  less  hopeful  than  Isaiah.  His  outspoken  de- 
nunciation of  the  sinfulness  of  Judah  reaches  its  culmination  in  a 
sentence  which  his  contemporaries  regarded  as  treason  :  "  There- 
fore on  your  account  Zion  shall  be  ploughed  as  a  field,  Jerusalem 
shall  become  ruins  and  the  Temple  mount  a  wooded  hill."  * 

It  was  this  bold  declaration,  which  is  certainly  more  advanced 
than  anything  we  have  from  Isaiah,  which  impressed  succeed- 
ing generations.  As  we  read  these  utterances  we  feel  that  we 
could  wish  to  know  more  of  the  man — a  champion  of  right,  fear- 
less in  denouncing  oppression  and  wrong,  and  moreover  who 
stayed  himself  on  God  when  the  world  was  all  against  him.  But 
we  are  obliged  to  content  ourselves  with  a  mere  glimpse.  What 
little  he  gives  us  confirms  the  picture  painted  by  Isaiah. 

If  our  supposition  is  correct,  the  lesson  taught  by  Sennacherib 

1  Micah,  3  * r.  The  vigour  of  the  passage  has  been  weakened  in  the  current 
text  by  scribal  insertions. 

*/bid.,  2",  cf.  3*. 

1  Ibid.,  3  lf .  These  first  three  chapters  of  Micah  are  all  that  can  be  ascribed 
with  certainty  to  the  Micah  who  was  contemporary  with  Isaiah.  The  rest  of 
the  book  is  for  the  most  part  post-exilic,  as  was  shown  by  Stade,  Zeitsckrift 
f.  d.  Alltest.  Wisfensch.  I.,  pp.  161-172. 


254  OLD   TESTAMENT    HISTORY 

was  taken  to  heart  by  Hezekiah.  The  experiences  of  the  year 
"f<ji  must  have  thoroughly  discredited  the  Egyptian  alliance,  and 
must  also  have  greatly  enhanced  the  influence  of  Isaiah.  The 
Biblical  account  indicates  that  about  this  time  the  king  had  per- 
sonal reasons  to  esteem  the  prophet.  In  a  severe  illness  which 
befell  him,  the  prophet  came  to  him  with  a  message  of  hope 
which  was  followed  by  his  recovery.  It  can  scarcely  be  that 
such  an  experience  would  not  affect  the  king's  attitude  toward 
the  prophet.  We  may  plausibly  suppose  that  during  the  period 
which  followed,  Hezekiah,  at  the  suggestion  of  Isaiah,  undertook 
the  religious  reforms  which  have  been  already  described. 

The  Biblical  writer  indicates  that  the  king  devoted  his  closing 
years  to  internal  improvements,  especially  to  the  water  supply  of 
Jerusalem.  The  reservoir  and  canal  mentioned  in  this  account1 
may  be  plausibly  identified  with  the  tunnel  which  leads  from  the 
so-called  Fountain  of  the  Virgin  to  the  Pool  of  Siloam.  The  in- 
scription discovered  in  this  tunnel  in  our  own  times  gives  no  clue 
to  the  age  of  the  work.  But  there  is  nothing  in  its  wording  or  in 
^he  form  of  its  letters  to  prevent  attributing  it  to  Hezekiah.  Of 
Vsaiah's  later  years  we  know  nothing — or  rather,  we  do  not  know 
Jbat  he  long  survived  the  great  Assyrian  crisis.  The  tradition 
that  he  was  murdered  by  Manasseh  has  no  early  authentication. 

Hezekiah  was  succeeded  by  his  son,  Manasseh  (692-639),  of 
whose  long  reign  the  historian  has  little  to  relate.  Orthodox 
public  opinion  saw  in  him  the  incarnation  of  wickedness.  "  He 
did  evil  in  the  sight  of  Yahweh,  like  the  abominations  of  the 
nations  whom  Yahweh  dispossessed  before  the  sons  of  Israel.  He 
rebuilt  the  High-places  which  Hezekiah,  his  father,  had  destroyed, 
and  he  raised  altars  to  Baal,  and  made  an  Ashera  as  Ahab,  King 
of  Israel,  had  done,  and  worshipped  all  the  host  of  heaven,  and 
served  them.  .  .  .  And  he  offered  his  son  in  the  fire,  and 
practised  augury  and  magic,  and  made  talismans  and  charms."  ' 
The  indictment  is  certainly  heavy  enough,  and  those  who  drew  it 
up  could  understand  the  king's  action  only  as  the  manifestation 
of  sheer  depravity.  For  us,  while  it  may  not  be  true  that  taut 
comprendre,  c'est  tout  pardonncr,  there  may  be  mitigating  cir- 
cumstances. 

1  2  Kings,  20 Jt ;  cf.  Benzinger,  Hebrtiiscke  Arch&ologie,  p.  53  f. 
1  2  Kings,  2 1  *"*.   I  have  quoted  the  gist  of  the  passage,  which  shows  the 
marks  of  different  hands. 


HEZEKIAH   AND   MANASSEH 

We  have  seen  that  Hezekiah  introduced  religious  reforms,  prob- 
ably under  the  influence  of  Isaiah.  No  such  reforms  are  ever 
made  without  encountering  opposition.  When  made  by  the 
royal  power  they  are  carried  through  by  force,  rising  often  to  vio- 
lence. The  directions  of  the  Deuteronomist  show  how  the  power 
of  the  state  was  invoked  to  carry  out  the  programme  of  reform. 
Violence  begets  violence.  The  destruction  of  the  Nehushtan 
doubtless  outraged  the  feelings  of  many  a  conservative  Judaite. 
The  time-honoured  symbol  of  Yahweh  was  associated  with  the 
history  of  the  people  from  the  time  of  Moses.  Why  should  it  be 
ruthlessly  destroyed  by  this  innovating  king  ?  Such  a  question 
must  have  been  asked  in  Jerusalem,  and  even  in  the  court  itself. 
If  we  may  judge  by  the  present  condition  of  society  in  the  East, 
the  women  of  the  palace  were  devoted  to  the  ancient  supersti- 
tions. It  is,  in  fact,  a  general  rule  that  older  religious  rites  and 
notions  are  held  longest  by  women — the  necromancers  and  dealers 
in  charms  or  talismans  are  usually  women  according  to  the  Old 
Testament  records.  Manasseh  came  to  the  throne  very  young. 
It  is  natural  that  he  should  be  much  under  the  influence  of  the 
harem.  It  is  likely,  also,  that  the  courtiers  of  Hezekiah  were 
many  of  them  out  of  sympathy  with  his  reforms.  The  crown 
prince  in  any  court  is  likely  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  a  clique  be- 
longing to  the  opposition  party,  and  it  is  not  extravagant  to  sup- 
pose this  case  an  example  of  the  rule. 

On  the  part  of  the  court  ladies,  personal  resentment  at  Isaiah 
may  have  been  a  motive  leading  them  to  prejudice  the  young 
prince  against  him.  The  prophet,  in  denouncing  the  vanity  and 
corruption  of  his  times,  did  not  spare  the  women  of  Jerusalem  : 

"  Because  Zion's  daughters  are  haughty, 
And  walk  with  neck  thrown  back,  and  leering  eyes, 
Tripping  along  as  they  go,  and  making  a  chime  with  their  anklets— 
With  scabs  will  the  Lord  incrust  the  crowns  of  their  heads, 

Yahweh  will  expose  their  shames  ; 
Instead  of  perfume  there  shall  be  rottenness, 

And  instead  of  a  girdle  a  rope, 
Instead  of  artful  curls,  baldness, 

And  instead  of  a  flowing  mantle,  girding  of  sackcloth."1 

1  Isaiah,  3  '••  "•  **.  I  have  followed  Cheyne's  translation,  only  substituting 
a  pronounceable  name  for  the  unpronounceable  one  Jhvh.  The  passage  in 
oar  Bibles  has  been  expanded  by  some  ladies'  tailor,  who  has  inserted  a 
long  catalogue  of  finery. 


2$6  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

So  indelicate  a  denunciation  could  not  fail  to  offend  the  smart 
set.  They  remembered,  also,  an  earlier  message  of  the  prophet, 
pronouncing  a  woe  upon  Judah  because  a  boy  was  their  governor 
and  women  ruled  over  them.  Occasions  of  misunderstanding  are 
plenty  in  the  court  of  a  petty  kingdom,  and  Manasseh  may  have 
been  the  victim  of  his  circumstances.  All  the  influences  by 
which  he  had  been  surrounded  from  his  youth  were  reactionary, 
and  it  is  not  strange  that  he  should  view  himself  as  the  restorer  of 
Judah's  ancient  worship.  The  Nehushtan  could  not  be  restored 
because  it  had  been  wholly  destroyed.  But  the  local  sanctuaries 
could  be  repristinated.  They  may  not  have  been  removed  by 
Hezekiah,  but  after  the  sweeping  Assyrian  desolations,  they  may 
have  been  discredited  in  comparison  with  the  Temple,  which  had 
been  so  remarkably  preserved.  The  Baal  altars,  mentioned  by 
the  historian,  may  have  been  these  same  High-places  which  had 
been  adopted  by  the  Israelites  from  their  predecessors.  The 
Ashera,  here  so  strangely  associated  with  Ahab,  was  only  the 
sacred  pole  found  at  every  altar  of  Yahweh.  Whether  it  had  been 
removed  by  Hezekiah  may  be  left  an  open  question.  That  it 
became  obnoxious  to  the  reformers  from  this  time  on  is  evident 
from  the  bitterness  of  the  Deuteronomist. 

Whatever  of  magic  and  necromancy  had  been  discouraged  by 
Hezekiah  now  came  again  to  the  front.  The  flourishing  con- 
dition of  these  arts  is  testified  by  the  Deuteronomist.  These 
superstitions  are  connected  with  the  worship  of  the  demons,  fair- 
ies, cobolds  or  jinn,  with  which  the  earlier  Semitic  religions  (like 
all  others)  swarm.  The  sacrifice  of  the  king's  son  is  a  return  to 
ancestral  custom,  as  we  have  noticed  in  the  case  of  Ahaz.  Jere- 
miah speaks  of  such  sacrifices  as  common  in  his  time,  and  Ezekiel 
regards  them  as  a  part  of  Israel's  early  religion.  Their  hold  on 
the  piety  or  the  superstition  of  the  people  must  have  been  very 
strong. 

All  the  measures  thus  far  considered  are  a  part  of  a  conservative 
reaction — a  return  to  what  had  always  been  Israel's  practice. 
Another  item  does  not  stand  on  the  same  plane  with  these, 
but  is  easily  explicable — the  restoration  of  altars  to  the  host  of 
heaven.  Sun,  moon,  planets,  and  constellations  are  objects  of 
adoration  in  the  religion  of  Assyria  and  Babylonia.  As  a  faithful 
vassal  of  Assyria,  Manasseh  was  bound  to  honour  these  gods.  Ahaz 
had  introduced  and  fostered  their  worship.  Hezekiah  had  ap- 


HEZEKIAH   AND    MANASSEH 

parently  discountenanced  it  so  far  as  he  dared.  But  Manasseh 
encouraged  it  and  gave  it  renewed  prominence. 

What  he  did  was  no  more  than  had  been  done  by  Solomon. 
But  times  had  changed.  Though  the  prophets  had  seemed  to 
speak  to  deaf  ears,  yet  in  reality  their  message  had  succeeded  in 
reaching  a  part  of  the  people.  Consciences  were  more  sensitive 
than  of  yore,  and  the  uneasy  feeling  that  Yahweh  was  a  jealous 
God  brought  forward  protests  against  Manasseh's  measures.  Men 
like  Isaiah  and  Micah  left  disciples.  We  are  justified  in  supposing 
them  united  in  a  party  of  opposition,  weak  indeed,  but  contain- 
ing the  germs  of  larger  things.  Religious  opposition  to  the  crown, 
however,  was  political  opposition,  and  political  opposition  was 
treason.  It  is  easy  to  interpret  the  declaration  of  the  Book  of 
Kings,  therefore,  where  it  says  that  Manasseh  shed  innocent 
blood  very  much,  and  filled  Jerusalem  from  end  to  end  with 
blood.1  This  vigorous  policy  seems  to  have  silenced  open 
opposition.  We  hear  of  no  prophet  who  stood  up  to  make  public 
protest.1  The  silence  of  our  records  on  this  head  may  be  an 
unsafe  guide.  Whatever  was  done  or  not  done  in  the  way  of 
public  speaking,  the  prophetic  party  cannot  have  been  idle,  and 
it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  their  activity  found  a  congenial 
field  in  literature.  The  union  of  the  two  works  which  treat  the 
patriarchal  history  (J  and  E)  is  dated  by  some  critics  in  the 
reign  of  Manasseh.  The  legends  of  the  great  prophets  who  fought 
on  the  side  of  Yahweh  against  the  encroachments  of  Baal  would 
now  have  a  special  meaning  and  interest.  The  works  of  Amos, 
Hosea,  and  Isaiah  would  be  cherished  and  studied.  And  already 
the  Deuteronomist  was  collecting  the  traditions  of  Moses*  legis- 
lation, and  meditating  a  new  edition  of  them,  enlarged  by 
stringent  commands  against  Canaanitish  heathenism.  But  we 
are  obliged  to  content  ourselves  with  conjectures  as  to  what  was 
going  on  in  secret.  In  the  open  we  see  only  the  complete  restor- 
ation of  the  old  stage  of  belief  and  ritual. 

The  reign  seems  to  have  been  a  time  of  peace  with  foreign 
nations.  Assyria  was  unbroken  in  strength,  and  Manasseh  was 
willing  to  pay  his  tribute,  thereby  purchasing  peace.  His  relig- 

'2  Kings,  21 1S.  Jeremiah  has  the  same  thing  in  mind:  "Your  sword 
has  devoured  your  prophets  "  (Jer.  2  "). 

*  Possibly  Micah's  answer  to  the  question  concerning  child  sacrifice  (Micah 
6  *-*)  may  be  as  late  as  Manasseh's  time. 


2$8  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

ious  enactments  were  in  themselves  a  declaration  of  complete 
submission  to  Nineveh.  Egypt,  moreover,  was  weak  and  of- 
fered no  temptation  to  revolt.  Esarhaddon,  who  came  to  the 
throne  in  680  B.C.,  was,  in  fact,  able  to  carry  his  arms  against  that 
country,  and  to  capture  Memphis,  after  which  the  whole  kingdom 
made  its  submission.  This  event  had  been  preceded  by  the  re- 
duction ofSidon,  and  by  a  successful  campaign  against  the  Arabs 
of  the  Sinaitic  peninsula.  The  only  mention  which  Esarhaddon 
makes  of  Manasseh  is  in  the  list  of  "twenty-two  kings  of  the 
Hittite  country  who  furnished  timber"  for  the  great  armoury 
then  building  at  Nineveh.1 

Ashurbanipal,  the  next  king  of  Assyria,  was  also  involved  in 
war  with  Egypt.  Tirhaka,  king  of  Ethiopia  (that  is,  Nubia), 
descended  the  Nile  to  Memphis,  expelled  the  Assyrian  governors, 
and  proclaimed  himself  King  of  Egypt.  The  Assyrian  army, 
marching  to  regain  its  province,  was  this  time  reinforced  by  Pal- 
estinian troops.  Among  the  kings  who  furnished  contingents,  we 
find  again  the  name  of  Manasseh.*  This  expedition  advanced  as 
far  as  Thebes,  and  a  second  expedition,  rendered  necessary  by  a 
revolt  of  the  Egyptians  not  long  after,  was  equally  successful. 
The  practical  demonstration  of  the  weakness  of  Egypt  must  have 
strengthened  the  hold  of  Assyria  on  its  subjects  in  the  West.  A 
further  object-lesson  was  the  repetition  by  Esarhaddon  of  the  col- 
onisation of  Samaria,  to  which  allusion  has  been  made.  All  in  all, 
the  policy  of  fidelity  to  Assyria  was  justified  by  worldly  wisdom. 

The  author  of  the  book  of  Chronicles  knows  indeed  of  an  at- 
tempted rebellion  of  Manasseh,  of  his  capture  and  transportation 
to  Babylon,  where  he  repented  and  was  restored  to  his  kingdom.* 
The  fruits  of  his  repentance  are  also  recounted  to  us  in  the  way 
of  religious  reforms  in  Jerusalem.  In  view  of  the  silence  of  the 
earlier  sources,  this  account  must  be  received  with  caution. 

1  Keilinschr.  Bibliothek,  II,  pp.  137,  149.  In  the  list  we  find  Tyre, 
Edom,  Gaza,  Edom,  and  Moab.  The  expedition  against  Sidon  (Ibid.,  p.  125) 
seems  to  have  affected  that  city  alone.  Winckler  adds  that  Manasseh  fur- 
nished troops  for  the  Arabian  expedition  as  well  as  for  the  one  against 
Egypt,  both  which  he  dates  671  B.C.;  cf.  Keilinschriften  und  Altes  Testa- 
ment,1 p.  90. 

*Keilimchr.  Bibliothek,  II,  pp.  161,  329. 

1  2  Chron.  33"-".  The  mention  of  Babylon  which  formerly  made  a  diffi- 
culty does  so  no  longer,  because  we  know  that  Ashurbanipal  spent  a  grea* 
deal  of  time  in  that  city. 


HEZEKIAH   AND   MANASSEH 

The  brief  reign  of  Amon  is  scarcely  an  incident  in  Old  Testa- 
ment history.  All  that  the  Hebrew  historian  tells  us  of  him  is 
that  he  walked  in  all  the  ways  of  his  father,  and  served  the  idols 
which  his  father  served.  Besides  this  we  learn  only  that  he  was 
assassinated  in  his  palace,  as  the  result  of  a  plot  of  his  officers. 
Whether  this  was  a  harem  intrigue  in  favour  of  some  other  mem- 
ber of  the  royal  family  will  never  be  known  with  certainty.  The 
statement  that  the  people  of  the  land  (that  is,  the  people  at  large 
in  distinction  from  the  court  officials)  smote  the  conspirators 
and  set  Josiah  on  the  throne,  implies  strong  opposition  between 
them  and  the  court.  It  is  possible  that  Josiah  was  already 
known  as  a  member  of  the  prophetic  party. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

JOSIAH    AND    HIS    SONS 

WHAT  was  said  above  about  the  influence  of  the  harem  upon 
a  young  prince  would  seem  to  apply  with  equal  force  to  Josiah, 
for  he  was  only  eight  years  old  when  he  came  to  the  throne 
(B.C.  637).  Yet  Josiah  was  wholly  in  the  hands  of  the  reform- 
ing party.  We  might  account  for  this  partly  by  recalling  what 
was  said  about  the  crown  prince  being  in  the  party  of  opposition. 
But  we  do  not  know  that  Josiah  was  the  heir  apparent.  He 
seems  to  have  been  made  king  by  a  popular  movement  in  oppo- 
sition to  a  strong  party  at  court.  While  Manasseh  was  violently 
reintroducing  ancient  abuses,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that 
some  even  of  his  own  family  were  unwilling  to  go  his  lengths. 
The  reformers,  making  quiet  propaganda  among  the  people,  had 
means  of  approaching  the  court.  The  blood  of  the  martyrs  is 
the  seed  of  the  Church,  and  from  those  put  to  death  for  their 
fidelity  to  their  convictions  some  voice  might  penetrate  as  far  as 
the  king's  harem.  The  priest  Hilkiah  seems  to  have  been  one 
of  the  reformers,  and  we  may  suppose  him  one  of  the  thoughtful 
men  to  whom  the  writings  of  Isaiah  and  the  story  of  his  life 
would  make  a  strong  appeal. 

We  are  told  nothing  of  the  reign  of  Josiah  till  his  eighteenth 
year,  when  there  occurred  an  event  of  the  first  importance  not 
only  for  his  time  but  for  all  succeeding  ages.  This  was  the  find- 
ing of  the  Book  of  Instruction.1  The  Biblical  account  is  to  the 
effect  that  in  Josiah's  eighteenth  year  he  sent  his  secretary,  Shaph- 
an,  to  take  account  of  the  money  in  the  collection-box  in  the 
Temple — we  have  already  learned  of  the  arrangement  made  by 
Jehoash.1  Shaphan  was  to  act  as  inspector,  while  Hilkiah  made 

1  This  is  the  name  by  which  the  book  is  called  in  the  Biblical  account 
(2  Kings,  22  *-ls),  and  we  may  conveniently  retain  the  title.  The  later  Jews 
applied  the  same  name  (Sepher  ha-Tora)  to  the  whole  Pentateuch,  which, 
however,  we  may  call  the  Book  of  the  Law  in  order  to  avoid  confusion. 

*2  Kings.  12  *•".     The  account  of  the  finding  of  the  book  is  in  2  Kings, 

260 


JOSIAH  AND   HIS  SONS  26' 

his  reckoning.  After  the  main  business  was  attended  to,  Hilkian 
informed  Shaphan  that  he  had  found  the  Book  of  Instruction  in 
the  House  of  Yahweh — in  the  Temple  proper,  would  be  the  nat- 
ural understanding  of  the  words.  How  the  book  came  to  be  in 
this  particular  place,  or  how  it  came  to  be  found  at  this  particu- 
lar juncture,  is  not  told.  We  may  conjecture  that  the  priest  had 
been  inspecting  the  repairs,  or  making  ready  for  them  ;  that 
he  had  been  taking  an  inventory  of  the  store  chambers ;  that 
he  had  been  cleansing  the  Holy  Place — plenty  of  occasions 
exist ;  and  there  seems  to  be  no  reason  to  doubt  the  statement 
that  he  found  the  book.  It  was  an  event  unexpected  to  him- 
self, and  not  a  mere  subterfuge  to  get  the  book  into  the  king's 
hands.1 

Shaphan  read  the  book  and  was  so  much  impressed  by  it  that 
he  brought  it  to  the  king  and  read  it  to  him.  There  is  no  ques- 
tion of  illegibility  or  of  difficulty  in  decipherment,  such  as  the 
scribe  would  have  found  had  the  book  been  of  great  age.  The 
book  was  of  no  great  size,  as  we  may  conclude  from  its  being 
read  twice  after  a  considerable  part  of  the  day  had  passed  in 
regulating  the  money  matters  of  the  Temple.  To  all  appearance 
there  was  still  time,  the  same  day,  for  an  embassy  to  Huldah 
and  for  a  third  reading. 

The  effect  upon  the  king  was  immediate  and  pronounced.  He 
rent  his  clothes  in  grief  and  terror,  and  at  once  took  steps  to  dis- 
cover the  mind  of  Yahweh  :  "  Inquire  of  Yahweh  for  me  and  for 
the  people  and  for  Judah  concerning  this  book,  for  great  is  the 
wrath  of  Yahweh  which  is  kindled  against  us."  To  ascertain 
the  mind  of  Yahweh  a  distinguished  embassy  was  sent  to  Hul- 
dah, a  prophetess,  wife  of  one  of  the  king's  officers.  She  gave  a 
response  confirming  the  king's  fear,  and  denouncing  the  idolatry 
and  disobedience  of  the  people.  In  our  present  text  she  is  made 
also  to  declare  that  punishment  is  inevitable,  but  that  it  will  be 
delayed  till  after  Josiah's  death  because  he  himself  is  right- 
minded  toward  Yahweh.  There  is  reason  to  suppose  that  this 
form  of  the  response  is  due  to  a  later  writer,  who  wished  to  make 
the  prophecy  conform  to  the  event.  Originally  the  response 
must  have  been  such  as  to  encourage  the  king  with  the  hope 
that  the  door  of  repentance  was  still  open.  The  energy  with 
which  the  king  went  to  work  to  enforce  the  commands  of  the 
1  Some  suppose  that  it  was  such  a  subterfuge. 


262  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

book  snows  that  he  had  such  a  hope.  But  hope  is  what  is  cut 
off  by  the  response  as  now  worded. 

If  anything  was  to  be  done  it  must  be  done  at  once.  An  as- 
sembly of  notables  was  therefore  called  without  delay.  The  king 
took  his  stand  on  the  raised  platform — the  one  which  he  regu- 
larly occupied  in  observing  the  ritual.  He  first  read  the  book; 
then  speaking  for  himself  and  as  representative  of  the  people,  he 
registered  a  vow  that  they  would  carry  out  the  ordinances  and 
commands  therein  contained.  All  who  were  present  "stood  to 
the  covenant"  probably  by  a  solemn  Amen.  The  zeal  of  the 
quickened  consciences  made  itself  manifest  in  the  immediate  de- 
struction of  whatever  in  the  Temple  savoured  of  idolatry. 

The  work  did  not  stop  at  the  Temple.  The  details  are  worth 
noticing  as  showing  how  much  of  heathenism  was  extant  in  Judah, 
a  part  of  it  imported  by  Manasseh,  but  the  most  of  it  claiming 
great  antiquity.  A  beginning  was  made  with  the  Ashera — the 
sacred  pole  which  had  stood  by  the  altar  of  Yahweh  from  time  im- 
memorial. Of  its  origin  and  purpose  we  are  in  ignorance.  Until 
this  time  it  seems  not  to  have  been  obnoxious  to  the  religious 
leaders  except  as  they  rejected  the  whole  machinery  of  worship. 
Now  the  people  became  suddenly  enlightened  and  cut  it  down. 
It  was  brought  out  to  the  Kidron  valley  and  burned,  and  the 
ashes  were  scattered  on  the  graves  of  the  common  people.1 
These  graves  were  of  course  "unclean,"  and  the  sacredness  of 
the  ancient  emblem  inhering  even  in  its  ashes  could  be  effectually 
destroyed  only  in  some  such  way  as  this.  Next  the  people  tore 
down  the  chambers  of  the  Qedeshim,  the  ministers  to  unnatural 
lust,  which  are  mentioned  in  connection  with  the  Temple  in  the 
time  of  Asa.1  Our  historian  then  mentions  the  High-places — 
the  ancient  sanctuaries  outside  Jerusalem  so  often  alluded  to  with 
disapproval.  These  country  sanctuaries  were  attacked  from  Geba 
to  Beersheba — that  is,  from  the  northern  to  the  southern  bound- 
ary of  Judah — and  destroyed.  Their  venerable  character  may 
be  realised  when  we  recall  the  story  of  the  consecration  of  Beer- 
sheba  by  Abraham  and  Isaac.  The  altars  were  destroyed,  but  as 
these  sanctuaries  were  dedicated  bonafide  to  Yahweh,  their  priests 

1 2  Kings,  23.  The  account  is  over-full,  owing  to  later  expansion  Verse* 
seems  to  join  directly  to  v.s. 

'  i  Kings,  15  !l  Asa's  reform,  whatever  it  may  have  been,  was  evidertly 
temporary. 


JOSIAH   AND    HIS  SONS  263 

were  brought  to  Jerusalem  and  enrolled  in  the  staff  of  the  Tern- 
pie.  The  king's  intention  to  put  them  on  a  par  with  the  regu- 
lar Temple  priesthood  was  foiled  by  the  opposition  of  the  latter, 
who  found  possession  nine  points  of  the  law.  Our  account  says 
the  country  priests  did  not  go  up  to  the  altar  though  they  ate 
unleavened  cakes  among  their  brethren.  This  means  that  they 
formed  a  second  and  inferior  order  of  priests.1 

Next  came  a  thorough  cleaning  up  in  the  vicinity  of  Jerusalem. 
The  altar  in  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  just  under  the  city  walls — 
notorious  as  the  place  where  children  were  sacrificed  to  Moloch 
— was  thoroughly  desecrated  in  order  to  put  an  end  to  this  horrid 
rite.1  In  the  gate  of  the  Temple  was  a  building  for  the  horses 
sacred  to  the  sun,  "which  the  kings  of  Judah  had  consecrated." 
The  horses  were  taken  away,  and  the  chariots  which  were  conse- 
crated to  the  same  service  were  destroyed.  The  roof  altars  of 
which  we  have  heard  in  connexion  with  Ahaz  and  Manasseh, 
were  carried  away  and  dumped  in  the  Kedron  valley.  Solomon's 
sanctuaries  erected  to  the  various  gods  of  his  subjects,  and  de- 
signed to  secure  their  favour,  could  not  escape  the  fate  of  the 
others.  So  great  was  the  king's  zeal  that  he  went  beyond  his 
own  proper  territory  and  overthrew  the  celebrated  altar  at  Bethel.* 
That  these  proceedings  did  not  evoke  protest  and  opposition 
cannot  be  supposed,  though  the  wholesale  slaughter  of  priests  of 
which  we  read  at  the  close  of  the  account,  seems  to  be  the  inven- 
tion of  a  later  time. 

To  show  that  the  reform  was  not  to  be  merely  negative,  the 
king  ordered  the  observance  of  the  Passover,  "according  to 
what  is  written  in  this  Book  of  the  Covenant."  It  is  startling 
to  read  that  no  passover  like  this  had  been  observed  from  the 

1  The  precarious  nature  of  their  tenure  is  described  by  an  author  of  about 
this  time  who  sends  to  Eli  (representative  of  these  priests  of  the  Bamoth)  a 
message  to  the  effect  that  his  descendants  will  beg  the  priest  of  their  day  to 
give  them  employment  for  a  piece  of  bread  (i  Sam.  2  M). 

1  That  Moloch  was  identified  in  the  popular  mind  with  Yahweh  the  king 
(Melech)  must  be  conceded.  The  sacrifice  of  a  son  by  Ahaz,  and  also  by 
Manasseh,  has  already  come  under  our  notice.  Had  these  been  intended  for 
a  foreign  god  the  fact  would  probably  have  been  noted.  Compare  Pro- 
fessor Moore's  article  "  Molech  "  in  the  Encycl.  Biblica. 

3  This  seems  to  be  asserted  in  the  original  account.  A  later  hand  has  found 
m  this  incident  the  fulfilment  of  a  prophecy  made  to  Jeroboam  I.  And 
another  supplementer  has  given  into  Josiah's  hand  all  (he  sanctuaries  of 
all  Samaria  (2  Kings,  23  " f). 


264  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

days  of  the  Judges.  What  the  author  means  is  that  a  passover 
such  as  is  enjoined  in  the  just  found  book  was  something  new, 
A  religious  festival  of  some  kind  at,  or  near,  the  vernal  equinox, 
seems  to  belong  to  primitive  Semitic  religion.  What  it  was 
that  made  it  seem  a  new  observance  is  part  of  a  larger  inquiry 
to  which  we  must  now  address  ourselves — can  we  identify  the 
Book  of  Instruction,  which  here  enters  into  the  history,  and  which 
had  so  marked  an  effect  on  king  and  people  ? 

If  the  book  has  survived,  it  must  be  found  within  the  bounds 
of  the  Pentateuch.  For  this  is  the  only  part  of  the  Hebrew  Bible 
which  contains  statutes  and  ordinances  such  as  are  here  de- 
scribed. We  may  be  sure,  however,  that  it  was  not  the  whole 
of  these  five  books,  though  the  Jews  call  these  the  Book  of  In- 
struction still.  It  is  doubtful  whether  in  the  early  time  these 
were  ever  written  on  a  single  roll — the  division  into  five  is  de- 
cisive testimony  to  the  size  of  an  ancient  book.  Moreover,  this  is 
too  large  a  book  to  be  read  through  at  a  sitting,  nor  could  it  be 
read  aloud  twice  or  thrice  in  a  single  day.  The  account  im- 
plies a  book  in  which  threatenings  are  prominent  and  calculated 
to  make  a  vivid  impression  at  once.  For  these  reasons  it  has 
long  been  held  that  the  Book  of  Instruction  must  be  some  part 
of  the  book  which  we  call  Deuteronomy.  It  can  hardly  be  the 
whole  of  that  book,  for  this  shows  traces  of  later  expansion. 
The  central  chapters,  what  we  may  call  the  kernel  of  the  book, 
culminating  in  the  great  chapter  of  blessings  and  curses — the 
twenty-eighth — is  precisely  the  book  to  answer  all  the  require- 
ments. It  is  eminently  a  book  of  instruction  ;  it  contains  stat- 
utes and  ordinances;  it  can  be  read  in  a  short  time  ;  it  is  writ- 
ten in  the  style  of  the  personal  appeal,  such  as  must  go  to  the  heart 
of  an  impressionable  hearer;  it  contains  repeated  threats  of  judg- 
ment, and  ends  with  a  frightful  denunciation  of  Yahweh's  curse 
upon  those  who  disobey.  Nothing  could  be  more  impressive  to 
the  religious  mind  than  this  concluding  denunciation  : 

"  But  if  thou  dost  not  listen  to  the  voice  of  Yahweh  thy  God, 
then  all  these  curses  shall  come  upon  thee  and  overtake  thee: 
Cursed  shall  thou  be  in  the  city  and  cursed  in  the  country ; 
cursed  shall  be  thy  basket  and  thy  bread  bowl ;  cursed  the  fruit 
of  thy  body  and  the  fruit  of  thy  ground;  the  fruit  of  thy  kine 
and  thy  ewes ;  cursed  shalt  thou  be  in  thy  coming  and  in  thy 
going;  Yahweh  will  send  upon  thee  curse  and  confusion  and  evil 


JOSIAH  AND  HIS  SONS  265 

spell  in  whatever  thou  puttest  thy  hand  to,  till  thou  be  destroyed. 
The  heavens  over  thy  head  shall  become  copper,  and  the  earth 
under  thy  feet  shall  become  iron.  Yahweh  will  change  the  rain 
of  thy  land  to  sand  and  dust.  Yahweh  will  let  thee  be  smitten 
before  thine  enemy — thou  wilt  go  out  before  him  one  way  but 
flee  before  him  seven  ways  ;  and  thou  shall  become  an  object  of 
abuse  to  all  the  nations  of  the  earth.  The  stranger  who  sojourns 
as  a  client  with  thee  shall  keep  rising  above  thee,  while  thou  art 
sinking  lower  and  lower.  He  will  lend  to  thee  but  thou  wilt  not 
be  able  to  lend  to  him.1  All  these  curses  shall  come  upon  thee 
and  follow  thee  and  overtake  thee  until  thou  art  destroyed,  be- 
cause thou  hast  not  hearkened  to  Yahweh  thy  God,  to  keep  His 
commandments  and  His  statutes  which  He  commanded  thee ; 
and  they  shall  be  signs  and  portents  in  thee  and  in  thy  seed 
for  ever. ' ' 

When  we  remember  the  extraordinary  power  which  a  curse 
has — and  especially  a  written  curse — upon  the  minds  of  men  at 
a  certain  stage  of  religious  development,  we  can  understand  how 
these  sentences  affected  the  young  king.  What  is  now  our  chief 
concern  is  to  notice  that  the  book  which  contains  these  curses 
is  exactly  the  book  required  by  the  conditions  of  our  narrative. 
The  evidence  becomes  very  strong  when  we  compare  the  reforms 
made  by  Josiah  with  the  demands  of  the  book  before  us.*  The 
predominant  purpose  of  the  author  is  to  do  away  with  the  relig- 
ious errors  of  Judah,  by  concentrating  all  public  worship  at  the 
one  sanctuary  in  Jerusalem.  The  ancient  sanctuaries  had  re- 
mained in  honour  among  the  people  ever  since  the  settlement  in 
Canaan.  The  Baal  there  worshipped  had  become  fully  identified 
with  the  God  of  Israel.  But  their  Canaanitish  origin  was  still 
manifest  to  the  reflecting  mind,  as  we  see  in  the  classic  example 

1  The  tyranny  exercised  by  the  creditor  over  the  debtor  in  the  East,  which 
gives  point  to  this  clause,  is  abundantly  illustrated  in  the  Bible.  I  may  re- 
mark that  in  this  quotation  (Deut.  281*-*0'  **-*•  <•-*•)  I  am  giving  only  what 
the  most  recent  commentator  designates  as  part  of  the  original  book. 

*  I  mean  the  original  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  which  contained  at  any  rate 
chapters  12-19,  2D  and  28  of  the  present  book.  A  composition  of  this  kind 
easily  lends  itself  to  expansion,  and  many  hands  have  been  busy  in  making 
the  book  as  we  now  have  it.  The  reader  may  consult  Driver's  volume  in 
the  International  Critical  Commentary,  the  article  of  Professor  Moore  in  the 
Encyclopadia  Biblica,  Carpenter  and  Battersby  in  their  volumes  ou  The 
Hexateuch  (1900),  and  the  commentaries  of  Steuernagel  and  Bertholet 


266  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

of  Hosea.  The  prophets  and  their  pupils  were  advancing  in  the 
knowledge  of  Yahweh,  and  the  old  nature  worship,  though  offered 
to  Him,  was  become  repulsive  to  them.  The  author  of  the  new 
book  proposed  a  novel  remedy — that  the  worship  of  the  one  God 
should  be  limited  to  one  sanctuary.  This  stands  at  the  head  of 
his  commands  and  ordinances:  "You  must  not  do  as  we  do 
to-day,  every  one  what  he  thinks  good.  .  .  .  Beware  lest 
thou  bring  thy  burnt  offerings  at  every  sanctuary  that  thou  seest. 
Only  at  the  place  which  Yahweh  shall  choose  in  one  of  thy 
tribes  shalt  thou  bring  thy  burnt  offerings,  and  perform  all  that  I 
command  thee."  The  chapter  repeats  this  exhortation  to  re- 
dundancy.1 It  was  something  that  needed  to  be  emphasised,  if 
it  were  to  be  carried  through.  The  intention  is  to  abrogate  the 
earlier  permission  to  build  altars  at  every  place  where  Yahweh 
revealed  Himself,2  and  the  language  is  purposely  chosen  to  show 
this.  The  author  is  not  unmindful  of  the  practical  difficulties 
that  will  arise,  and  he  makes  provision  for  them.* 

The  main  purpose  of  the  book,  therefore,  was  carried  out  in 
the  reforms  of  Josiah.  The  old  sanctuaries  were  thoroughly  de- 
stroyed, though  so  far  as  they  were  recognised  as  belonging  to 
Yahweh  their  priests  were  brought  to  Jerusalem — which  also  is 
specifically  provided  in  the  book.4 

The  opposition  between  Yahweh  and  the  other  gods  was  known 
in  Israel  from  a  very  early  time.  Elijah  had  energetically 
preached  that  fidelity  to  Yahweh  excluded  the  worship  of  Baal, 
and  in  this  all  the  prophets  had  agreed.  But  the  Deuteronomist 
is  the  first  to  make  this  principle  the  basis  of  severe  practical  regu- 
lations. He  commands  specifically  that  any  Israelite  who  entices 
to  the  worship  of  any  god  but  Yahweh  shall  be  put  to  death. 
He  shall  not  be  spared — he  shall  be  delivered  over — by  his 
nearest  kin.  His  crime  shall  not  be  condoned,  even  in  the  face 
of  the  most  remarkable  prodigies  wrought  in  his  favour.  Like- 

1  Deut.  12  *• ls ;  notice  also  vv.  18>  ". 

'Ex.  20  M. 

*The  permission  to  slay  animals  for  food  elsewhere  than  at  an  altar,  was 
necessitated  by  the  limitation  of  the  sanctuaries  to  one.  It  was  hardly  less 
startling  than  the  first  regulation.  Up  to  this  date  it  is  probable  that  every 
act  of  slaying  an  animal  for  food  was  an  act  of  sacrifice. 

*  "  When  a  Levite  comes  from  any  of  thy  towns  where  he  lives  as  a  client, 
he  may  come  as  he  desires  to  the  place  which  Yahweh  shall  choose — he  shall 
have  the  same  portion" — i88f. 


JOSIAH   AND   HIS   SONS  267 

wise  the  Israelite  city  which  tolerates  the  worship  of  any  but  the 
one  God  of  Israel  is  to  be  put  to  the  sword,  and  all  that  is  in  it — 
human  beings  and  property — is  to  be  utterly  destroyed.1 

The  effect  of  these  directions  is  seen  in  Josiah's  measures  in  the 
Temple.  The  state  policy  of  Ahaz  and  Manasseh  had  crowded 
this  building  with  other  gods.  Now  these  had  to  go — the  roof 
altars  erected  to  the  planets  and  constellations,  the  horses  of  the 
sun  at  the  entrance  to  the  court.  The  old  Solomonic  sanctuaries 
in  the  city  or  its  suburbs  could  not  escape.  The  hatred  of  idol- 
atrous symbols  was  extended  by  the  Deuteronomist  to  the  ashera 
and  ma((fba,  which  had  been  accepted  as  innocent  accompani- 
ments of  the  altar  of  Yahweh  from  early  times.1  Very  likely  they 
were  Canaanitish  in  origin,  in  which  case  the  proscription  is  in- 
telligible.* It  was  effective  in  that  it  secured  the  destruction  of 
the  ashera  in  the  Temple  as  already  recounted.  It  is  scarcely 
necessary  to  call  attention  to  the  prohibition  of  child  sacrifice 
and  of  necromancers,  or  to  the  king's  measures  based  thereon.4 
The  Passover,  however,  should  have  a  moment's  attention. 
What  makes  the  festival  a  new  festival  is  the  command  that  it 
shall  be  observed  (being  a  sacrifice)  at  the  place  which  Yahweh 
shall  choose,  and  the  prohibition  of  its  observance  in  any  other 
place.  The  nomad  sacrifice  of  the  firstlings  of  the  flock  had 
been  a  household  festival  observed  by  each  family  in  its  own 
home.  This  is  clear  from  the  custom  of  sprinkling  or  smearing 
the  blood  on  each  doorway.  Now  it  is  made  a  great  national 
ceremony.  The  men  of  Israel  must  all  appear  at  Jerusalem  and 
there  alone  may  the  lamb  be  slain,  "  in  the  place  which  Yahweh 
shall  choose,  to  make  His  name  dwell  there."  *  It  is  as  if  the 
American  Thanksgiving  from  being  a  family  reunion  festival 
should  be  changed  to  a  great  pilgrimage  to  some  national  sanct- 
uary. It  would  be  practically  a  new  observance.  This  is  what 
the  author  of  Kings  means  by  the  Passover's  not  having  been 
observed  for  centuries. 

'Chapter  13  is  devoted  to  this  subject 

1  The  simplest  explanation  of  these  much  discussed  objects  is  that  the 
ashera  represents  the  sacred  tree,  while  the  ma^eba  is  the  old  stone  fetish  of 
which  we  have  a  plain  example  in  Jacob's  consecration  of  Bethel  (Gen.  28  IUM). 

s  The  author  is  not  content  with  directing  the  destruction  of  Canaanitish  pil- 
lars and  poles,  but  forbids  their  erection  at  the  altar  of  Yahweh  (Deut.  l6ilO. 

*Deut.  i8lof.  compares  Kings,  23**. 

•Deut.,  I61-4, 


268  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

These  considerations  are  sufficient  to  show  that  the  Book  of 
Deuteronomy  (in  its  earliest  form)  was  the  book  found  by 
Hilkiah.  It  is  possible  we  may  even  recover  from  it  the  form  of 
the  covenant  entered  into  at  the  sacred  assembly  called  by  the 
king:  "  Thou  hast  declared  Yahweh  this  day  to  be  thy  God,  so 
as  to  walk  in  His  ways  and  to  keep  His  statutes  and  His  judg- 
ments, and  to  listen  to  His  voice.  And  Yahweh  has  declared 
thee  this  day  to  be  His  own  people."  1 

It  remains  to  inquire  how  so  timely  a  book  came  to  be  in  the 
place  where  it  could  accomplish  the  most  good.  On  this  point 
we  have  no  direct  information,  but  we  may  be  allowed  a  conject- 
ure that  has  some  probability.  Such  a  book  must  have  originated 
with  the  prophetic  party,  and  it  probably  originated  during  the 
times  of  persecution  under  Manasseh.  The  men  who,  in  the  time 
of  Hezekiah,  had  hoped  and  worked  for  religious  reform,  were 
later  debarred  (as  we  have  seen)  from  public  activity.  That 
they  would  naturally  turn  to  literature  we  have  already  con- 
jectured. Isaiah  himself  had  a  circle  of  disciples  with  whom  he 
left  the  written  monuments  of  his  activity.1  Secret  societies  have 
always  existed  in  the  East,  and  such  a  society  would  be  the  nat- 
ural result  of  Manasseh's  severity.  We  may  imagine  the  little 
company  of  earnest  men  feeding  their  souls,  during  those  evil 
days,  on  the  written  word.  Nor  would  they  content  themselves 
with  a  life  of  silent  contemplation.  The  strong  faith  that  a  better 
day  was  coming  would  lead  them  to  plan  for  its  coming.  One 
or  more  of  them  would  be  moved  to  put  on  record  a  programme 
for  the  future.  That  it  should  contemplate  more  radical  reforms 
than  those  instituted  by  Hezekiah  is  only  what  we  should  expect. 

The  idea  most  strongly  borne  in  upon  this  company  of  faith- 
ful men  was  that  the  popular  religion  was  of  Canaanitish  origin. 
This  was  not  only  a  theological  deduction  from  the  idea  of 
Yahweh's  righteousness,  and  from  the  discord  between  this  and 
what  went  on  at  the  sanctuaries.  It  had  historical  justification 
and  it  had  been  preached  by  the  earlier  prophets — most  distinctly 
by  Hosea.  The  people  might  call  the  genius  loci  of  any  particular 
High-place  by  the  name  Yahweh.  Nevertheless,  they  were  wor- 
shipping a  Baal.  The  root  of  all  Israel's  evils  was  this  amalga- 

1  Deot.  26  "-» 

1  "I  will  bind  up  the  admonition  and  seal  the  instruction  among  my  dis- 
ciples"—Is.  8"(Cheyne). 


JOSIAH   AND   HIS  SONS  269 

mation  between  them  and  the  Canaanites.  The  only  way  in  which 
the  evils  could  have  been  avoided  was  by  the  extermination  of  the 
older  inhabitants  of  the  land.  The  author  finds  a  drastic  way 
of  expressing  this,  when,  putting  himself  in  the  place  of  Israel's 
venerable  lawgiver,  he  commands  not  only  the  complete  destruc- 
tion of  all  Canaanitish  objects  of  religion,  but  the  extermination 
of  the  Canaanites  themselves.  They  are  to  be  "devoted  " — an 
act  which  compels  a  complete  destruction.1  If  such  a  policy  of 
thorough  shocks  us,  we  may  remember  that  its  advocates  had  the 
example  of  Manasseh  before  their  eyes. 

It  was  not  the  old  Baal  worship  alone  that  wearied  the  souls  of 
these  faithful  men.  Survivals  in  the  time  of  Ezekiel  show  that 
the  primitive  totemism  was  found  even  in  the  Temple.  The  par- 
tisans of  Egypt  had  introduced  the  pantheon  of  that  country. 
The  Assyrian  gods  introduced  by  Ahaz  may  have  been  banished 
by  Hezekiah,  but  they  had  returned  in  full  force  under  Manasseh. 
Jeremiah  describes  the  whole  population  engaged  in  a  festival  to 
the  Queen  of  Heaven — probably  the  Babylonian  Ishtar — whose 
consort  or  paramour,  Tammuz,  was  bewailed  by  the  women  even 
in  the  Temple  courts  down  to  the  last  days  of  Jerusalem.1  The 
sun  worship  indicated  by  the  horses  and  chariots  already  noticed, 
is  also  described  by  Ezekiel.  We  cannot  wonder  that  men  who 
had  absorbed  Hosea's  idea  of  Israel's  exclusive  relation  to  Yah- 
weh,1  should  be  both  indignant  and  sick  at  heart.  If  Yahweh 
was  Israel's  husband,  who  had  cared  for  her  in  the  past,  who  had 
led  her  through  the  wilderness,  who  had  given  her  the  land  of 
Canaan,  filling  her  heart  with  food  and  gladness — if  at  the  same 
time  He  was  a  jealous  God,  not  tolerating  rivals  or  partners* — then 
it  was  plain  that  Israel  (now  represented  by  Judah)  was  in  a  per- 

1  Deut.  30  '*-18.  What  this  devotion  or  ban  (Hebrew  herem)  means  is  set 
forth  in  the  story  of  Jericho  and  its  conquest  in  the  book  of  Joshua.  Such 
a  religious  act  is  not  uncommon  in  early  warfare. 

1  Jer.  7 1T  f,  which  describes  the  worship  of  the  Queen  of  Heaven,  seems  to 
belong  in  the  reign  of  Josiah.  Stade's  ingenious  endeavour  to  show  that 
the  Host  of  Heaven  is  meant,  has  not  met  with  general  acceptance.  On 
Tammuz  (the  Adonis  of  Greek  myth)  see  Ezek.  8  ". 

1  The  figure  of  a  marriage  is  a  staple  in  the  preaching  of  Jeremiah  and  of 
Ezekiel. 

4  The  earliest  assertion  that  Yahweh  is  a  jealous  God  seems  to  be  in  J — 
Ex.  34  u.  In  the  earlier  time — before  Elijah  at  any  rate — the  people  seem 
to  have  worshipped  many  Gods  without  consciousness  of  offending  Yahweh. 


2/O  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

ilous  position.  The  Deuteronomist,  or  his  successor,  who  formu- 
lated the  faith  of  these  men  gave  Judaism,  Christianity,  and  Islam 
their  common  basis :  "  Yahweh  thy  God,  is  one;  and  thou 
shall  love  Yahweh  thy  God,  with  all  thy  mind,  and  with  all  thy 
being,  and  with  all  thy  strength."  * 

This  is  not  a  speculative  monotheism  which  is  asserted.  The 
author's  motive  is  moral  and  practical.  The  nations  may  have 
their  gods — for  Israel  there  can  be  but  one.  Whole-souled  devotion 
to  Him  is  the  basis  of  national  life  and  the  condition  of  national 
prosperity.  Hence  the  sweeping  and  cruel  measures  advocated 
against  the  Canaanites  as  against  all  renegade  Israelites.  The  re- 
quirement of  a  single  sanctuary  is  the  logical  sequence.  What 
had  confused  the  people  as  to  the  unity  of  their  God  was  the  mul- 
tiplicity of  holy  places.  The  Baal  of  any  particular  holy  place 
was  the  presiding  genius  of  that  locality.  The  change  of  name 
from  Baal  to  Yahweh  did  not  change  the  theory  of  the  worship- 
pers. In  the  mind  of  the  common  man  the  Yahweh  of  Beer- 
sheba,  the  Yahweh  of  Hebron,  and  the  Yahweh  of  Bethel  were 
so  many  local  divinities.  The  only  remedy  for  this  inveterate 
polytheism  of  the  people  was  the  restriction  to  a  single  sanctuary. 

So  radical  a  measure  could  not  be  advocated  unless  there  were 
special  circumstances  favouring  it.  We  may  count  as  one  of 
these  the  prophetic  tradition  concerning  ritual.  We  have  felt  the 
scorn  which  Amos,  Hosea,  and  Isaiah  poured  upon  the  popular 
service  of  Yahweh.  As  they  saw  it  going  on — luxurious,  lasciv- 
ious, uniting  drunkenness  with  injustice  and  oppression — they 
could  feel  only  abhorrence  for  it.  Such  a  service  was  an  abom- 
ination to  Yahweh.  The  less  of  such  a  service  the  people  had 
the  better  it  would  be  for  them — to  obey  is  better  than  to  sacri- 
fice, and  to  hearken  than  the  fat  of  rams. 

To  abolish  ritual  altogether  was  seen  to  be  impossible.  But  it 
was  thought  possible  to  regulate  it.  At  a  single  sanctuary  in  the 
capital  city,  under  the  eye  of  the  king,  with  adequate  police 
supervision,  the  worship  might  be  shorn  of  its  abuses.  The  three 
great  annual  festivals  would  be  often  enough  for  the  people  to 
appear  before  Yahweh.  Thus  the  traditional  worship  would  be 
conserved.  Nor  would  there  be  any  hardship  involved  in  such 
pilgrimages.  The  extent  of  Judah  was  small.  A  day's  journey 

1  Deut.  6  4 ',  cf.  10  "-15.  The  verses  may  not  be  by  the  earliest  Deuterono- 
mist, but  they  express  the  principle  of  the  school  in  the  most  perfect  form. 


JOSIAH   AND   HIS  SONS  2/1 

Would  be  all  that  would  be  required  of  the  most  remote  citizen. 
Such  a  journey  would  have  advantages  of  its  own  in  the  way  of 
trade  and  acquaintance,  and  the  festival  would  gain,  rather  than 
lose,  in  importance  by  being  the  occasion  of  a  formal  pilgrimage. 

If  there  were  to  be  a  single  sanctuary,  it  must  be  at  Jerusalem. 
The  Temple  had  been  at  first  no  more  than  the  king's  sanctuary, 
receiving  a  certain  prestige  from  its  connexion  with  the  court. 
Solomon  himself  had  recognised  the  importance  of  the  High- 
places  in  making  his  pilgrimage  to  Gibeon.  But,  as  time  went 
on,  the  Temple  grew  in  importance.  The  priests  attached  to  it 
had  the  means  of  making  its  service  attractive  and  imposing. 
Isaiah  held  the  sanctuary  to  be  the  residence  of  Yahweh.1  In  his 
time  it  had  received  a  signal  proof  of  the  divine  favour,  for  it 
had  been  protected  when  most  of  the  sanctuaries  were  captured 
and  sacked  by  the  Assyrians.  The  failure  of  Sennacherib  to  take 
Jerusalem  was  read  as  proof  of  the  inviolability  of  Yahweh's 
earthly  seat.  There  could  be  no  doubt  where  He  should  be 
worshipped — if  at  one  place,  it  must  be  here. 

The  course  of  reflection  which  gave  the  Deuteronomist  his 
leading  ideas  is  thus  tolerably  clear  to  us.  For  the  form  in  which 
he  presented  them  we  should  notice  that  a  great  name  of  the 
past  was  almost  essential  to  the  success  of  the  programme.  To 
put  the  ideas  on  parchment  as  a  bald  programme  of  reform  would 
be  to  invite  failure  from  the  start.  The  people  at  large  were  im- 
pervious to  logic  or  theology  in  abstract  form.  But  the  name  of 
Moses  would  appeal  to  them.  This  name  was  already  familiar  as 
that  of  the  founder  of  their  religion.  Tradition  already  ascribed 
to  him  the  regulation  of  the  social  order  and  the  establishment  of 
a  covenant  between  Yahweh  and  Israel.  The  social  and  religious 
ordinances  already  attributed  to  him  might  be  repeated  in  a  form 
adequate  to  the  times,  and  expanded  by  the  inclusion  of  the  re- 
forms the  author  had  so  much  at  heart. 

The  conception  which  the  Deuteronomist  had  of  his  own  work, 
therefore,  was  this:  He  would,  in  the  name  of  Moses,  remodel 
the  constitution  of  Moses  and  adapt  it  to  his  own  time.  The 
character  which  he  thus  assumed  allowed  him  to  express  his  own 
personality,  with  its  wealth  of  affection  for  Israel,  and  its  depth 
of  abhorrence  for  heathenism.  It  enabled  him  to  speak  with 
authority,  and  to  appeal,  on  the  ground  of  tradition,  to  the  best 
*As  we  see  from  his  inaugural  vision  (Is.  6). 


2/2  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

impulses  of  those  who  should  read  or  hear  his  book.  In  carrying 
out  his  plan  he  allowed  himself  to  embody  in  his  code  those  moral 
principles  which  the  whole  prophetic  school  had  so  much  at 
heart.  He  is  never  weary  of  urging  justice  to  the  oppressed, 
charity  for  the  needy,  kindness  to  the  dependent.  He  does  not 
content  himself  with  general  exhortations,  but  points  out  the  spe- 
cific occasions  on  which  acts  of  kindness  may  be  best  exercised. 
He  urges  this  on  the  ground  of  Israel's  own  experience  in  the 
past,  as  well  as  on  the  ground  of  Yahweh's  will  in  the  matter. 
That  he  appeals  to  utilitarian  motives  is  what  we  might  expect. 
Obedience  will  be  accompanied  by  temporal  prosperity,  disobedi- 
ence will  be  followed  by  calamity.  That  his  love  for  his  own 
people  co-exists  with  a  demand  for  the  most  ruthless  measures 
against  foreigners l  shows  how  easily  narrowness  may  be  found  in 
the  most  benevolent  heart. 

The  space  we  have  devoted  to  the  Book  of  Instruction  is  jus- 
tified by  its  importance  in  Old  Testament  history.  Politically, 
the  action  taken  by  Josiah  was  a  new  departure — practically 
nothing  less  than  the  adoption  of  a  written  constitution  for  the 
people.  Whatever  "Mosaic"  codes  had  existed  before  were 
compendiums  for  private  use.  Now  the  whole  nation  bound  itself 
in  the  most  solemn  manner  to  abide  by  certain  fixed  regula- 
tions. That  these  were  religious  as  well  as  civil  is  quite  in  accord 
with  ancient  thought.  The  distinction  of  church  and  state  was 
quite  unknown  in  Israel,  as  it  is  unknown  in  Islam  to-day.  The 
church,  in  fact,  was  the  state.  But  the  adoption  of  a  book  as  the 
basis  of  a  community  (whether  we  call  it  church  or  state)  was  an 
act  of  far-reaching  importance. 

The  immediate  effects  were,  of  course,  various  in  kind.  Some 
minds  must  have  been  repelled  rather  than  attracted  by  the  en- 
deavour to  put  the  transcendent  will  of  Yahweh  into  a  series  of 
rules.  The  letter  killeth,  the  Spirit  giveth  life,  would  be  their 
impression.  It  is  possible  that  we  may  find  a  representative  of 
these  more  spiritually  minded  believers  in  Jeremiah.  This 
prophet  must  have  known  the  book.  It  was  published  not  many 
years  after  he  began  to  preach.  His  language  constantly  shows 
its  influence  or  the  influence  of  its  ideas.  And  yet  he  makes  no 

1  The  author's  exhortations  in  favour  of  the  stranger  (as  we  have  it  in  our 
version)  include  only  the  stranger  who  has  entered  into  relations  of  clientage 
with  Israel. 


JOSIAH   AND   HIS   SONS 

direct  and  clear  allusion  to  it.  If  he  alludes  to  it  at  afi,  it  is  with 
an  implication  against  it.1  The  strong  affirmation  of  Yahweh's 
covenant  with  the  people,  which  is  made  by  Jeremiah  in  common 
with  Deuteronomy,  is  used  by  him  to  show  that  the  defection  of 
Judah  is  beyond  amendment.  By  the  law  is  the  knowledge  of 
sin.  The  attempt  to  put  God's  requirements  into  words  shows 
how  far  short  we  are  of  the  standard. 

No  doubt  more  practical  minds  found  satisfaction  in  the  new 
code.  Here  at  last  was  something  clear-cut  and  definite.  The 
exhortations  of  the  prophets  to  justice  and  kindness  and  the 
knowledge  of  God  had  been  irritating  from  their  vagueness. 
Now  the  exhortations  were  translated  into  commands.  Yahweh's 
will  was  now  set  forth  in  black  and  white.  He  meant  to  have 
them  destroy  the  High-places,  to  do  away  with  the  ashera,  to 
come  to  Jerusalem  three  times  a  year.  No  doubt  the  result  was 
to  encourage  obedience  to  these  specific  commands.  But  the  re- 
sult was  also  to  encourage  formalism  and  self-righteousness.  And 
the  danger  of  a  reaction  was  not  distant.  The  promise  of  earthly 
prosperity  on  condition  of  obedience  was  calculated  to  foster 
extravagant  hopes.  Should  disappointment  come,  the  conclusions 
that  would  be  drawn  are  obvious.  It  is  possible  that  Josiah  him- 
self was  the  victim  of  false  hopes. 

We  cannot  leave  this  subject  without  noticing  that  the  actual 
effect  of  the  adoption  of  the  Book  was  to  bring  to  an  end  the 
very  institution  that  it  was  meant  to  establish.  What  stands  out 
clearly  is  that  the  author  desired  to  strengthen  and  enforce  the 
authority  of  the  prophets.  He  himself  was  a  man  of  prophetic 
spirit  and  aims.  His  composition  is  a  prophetic  oration.  He 
regarded  Moses  as  only  the  first  of  a  long  line  of  inspired  men, 
to  follow  whom  would  make  Israel's  happiness.  He  embodied 
in  the  Book  an  explicit  promise  that  Yahweh  would  raise  up  a 
succession  of  such  leaders.  In  each  generation  there  would  be  a 
mediator  between  man  and  God,  who  should  be  instructed  in  the 
mind  of  God  and  convey  it  to  the  people,  even  as  Moses  stood  be- 
tween the  theophanic  fire  and  the  nation  whom  he  was  leading. 

1  Jer.  88  is  sometimes  supposed  to  be  a  reference  to  Deuteronomy,  in 
which  case  Jeremiah  condemned  the  book  because  it  enabled  the  people  to 
say  they  had  the  instruction  of  Yahweh,  and  consequently  did  not  need  that 
of  the  prophet.  The  reference,  however,  is  hardly  certain  enough  to  build 
upon. 


274  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

It  is  easy  to  see  the  author's  expectation  that  this  line  of  inspired 
instructors  is  to  continue  as  long  as  Israel  shall  be  a  people.1  The 
author  could  not  foresee  that  the  adoption  of  a  written  revelation 
would  do  away  with  the  necessity  of  the  directly  inspired  leader. 
Yet  such  was  the  outcome.  If  Moses,  the  greatest  of  the  prophets, 
left  the  revealed  will  of  God  in  writing,  why  another  prophet  ? 
If  the  additional  revelation  only  confirmed  the  one  already  given, 
it  would  be  needless.  It  is  to  be  supposed  that  a  scribe,  a  student 
of  language,  will  be  abundantly  able  to  interpret  and  expound 
the  sufficient  revelation.  We  see  how  easily  this  conclusion  was 
drawn,  and  how  the  adoption  of  Deuteronomy  was  the  first  step 
toward  the  triumph  of  legalism,  and  the  supremacy  of  the 
Scribes.1 

The  triumph  of  legalism,  however,  was  a  long  way  from  Jo- 
siah  and  his  contemporaries.  The  immediate  event  was  the  tri- 
umph of  the  prophetic  party.  The  religious  zeal  of  the  nation 
was  aroused  and  the  cultus  was  reformed  for  the  time  being. 
Probably  also  there  was  some  good  done  by  the  new-found  ex- 
hortations to  justice,  kindness,  and  sobriety.  If  we  may  judge  by 
the  condition  in  which  the  book  has  come  down  to  us,  it  was 
circulated  in  various  editions,  expanded  by  scribes  who  were  in 
sympathy  with  its  purpose.  Some  of  these  improvers  inserted 
additional  regulations,  drawing  upon  established  custom,  or  mak- 
ing the  new  commands  more  distinct.  Some  of  them  expanded 
the  hortatory  portions  and  enforced  the  lessons  of  the  wilderness 
wandering.  Our  present  copy  seems  to  combine  two  or  more  of 
these  enlarged  editions  and  was  further  added  to  when  it  was 
fitted  into  its  place  in  the  Pentateuch. 

Habit  is  often  stronger  than  any  fit  of  enthusiasm — it  has 
at  least  more  staying  power.  Religious  usage  is  naturally  tena- 
cious of  life.  The  forbidden  sanctuaries  must  of  necessity  still 
hold  a  place  in  the  regard  of  the  people.  The  forbidden  prac- 
tices could  not  at  once  be  forgotten,  nor  could  the  king's  com- 
mand make  odious  that  which  the  people  had  cherished  from 

1  Compare  Driver's  remarks,  in  his  Commentary,  on  Deut.  18  1&-22. 

*  On  Jeremiah's  attitude  toward  Deuteronomy,  compare  Carpenter  and 
Battersby,  The  Hexatetich,  I,  p.  90.  On  the  Babylonian  worship  of  the 
sun,  the  third  edition  of  Schrader's  Keilinschriften  und  Altes  Testament, 
p.  367,  and  on  the  Queen  of  Heaven,  alluded  to  above,  the  same  work, 
p.  441. 


JOSIAH   AND   HIS   SONS  2/5 

their  youth.  According  to  Jeremiah,  the  people's  heart  was  still 
uncircumcised  and  their  guilty  desires  still  went  out  to  other 
gods.  His  book  gives  no  indication  that  the  reform  showed  any 
real  fruits.1 

The  little  kingdom  of  Judah  was  thus  setting  its  house  in  order 
according  to  its  lights.  The  great  outside  world  meanwhile  was 
in  commotion.  Ashurbanipal,  the  last  great  king  of  Assyria,  died 
not  long  before  the  time  when  the  Book  of  Instruction  was  to 
create  so  profound  an  impression  in  Judah.  Already  the  cloud 
was  upon  the  horizon  which  should  break  upon  Nineveh  and 
overwhelm  it.  The  wanderers  of  the  far  northern  steppes  had 
begun  one  of  those  great  migrations  which  have  changed  the 
face  of  the  world.  The  Scythians  * — a  nomad  race — overran  the 
empire.  Beginning  with  Media,  they  swept  along  to  the  south 
till  they  reached  the  border  of  Egypt,  where  they  are  said  to 
have  refrained  from  invasion  in  consideration  of  a  heavy  money 
payment.  They  ravaged  the  country  far  and  wide,  and  although 
unable  to  conduct  a  regular  siege,  they  reduced  many  of  the 
walled  towns  by  starvation.  We  are  imperfectly  informed  of 
their  numbers  and  of  their  separate  campaigns.  Herodotus  says 
that  they  scourged  Assyria  twenty-eight  years.  The  terror  which 
the  report  of  them  produced  in  Palestine  may  be  read  in  Jere- 
miah's description  : 

"Cry  with  full  voice  and  say:  Assemble  and  come  to  the 
walled  towns  !  Lift  up  a  signal  in  Zion,  make  haste,  delay  not ! 
For  I  am  bringing  evil  from  the  north  and  a  great  calamity.  A 
lion  has  gone  up  from  his  lair,  and  a  destroyer  of  nations  has 
started  forth.  He  has  come  out  of  his  place  to  make  thy  land  a 
desolation  ;  thy  cities  shall  be  destroyed  without  inhabitant. 
Behold,  like  clouds  they  come  ;  their  chariots  are  like 
the  whirlwind  ;  swifter  than  eagles  are  their  horses.  Woe  to  us, 
for  we  are  destroyed  !  .  .  .  I  look  at  the  earth,  and  lo,  ut- 

1  Caution  is  necessary  here,  as  Jeremiah  did  not  write  down  any  of  his 
prophecies  (so  we  may  understand  the  account  in  chapter  36)  until  the  fourth 
year  of  Jehoiakim.  The  written  copy  may  be  more  denunciatory  than  was 
the  spoken  word.  Still  it  is  strange  that  he  should  not  refer  to  the  evanes- 
cent revival  if  he  approved  of  it  at  all. 

1  For  a  description  of  them,  cf.  Rawlinson's  Ancient  Monarchies,  II,  p. 
223  ff.  On  their  invasion  Duff,  Old  Testament  Theology,  II,  p.  17  ff. 
Though  Aryans  by  race  (as  it  seems),  they  may  be  aptly  compared  to  the 
Tartar  hordes  which  overran  the  East  in  the  Middle  Age. 


2/6  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

ter  confusion  !  At  the  sky — and  it  gives  no  light.  I  look  a; 
the  mountains  and  they  are  quaking ;  and  all  the  hills  reel  to  and 
fro.  I  look  and  there  is  no  man — even  the  birds  have  flown 
away.  I  look,  and  the  garden  land  has  become  a  wilderness,  and 
all  its  cities  are  overthrown  before  Yahweh,  before  His  hot 
anger."  l 

We  have  also  an  interesting  document  from  the  same  period  in 
the  little  book  of  Zephaniah,  a  descendant  of  King  Hezekiah.1 
Here  we  see  the  invasion  pictured  as  the  great  Day  of  Yahweh, 
which  the  prophets  so  often  have  in  mind.  Specifically  threat- 
ened are  the  Philistine  cities,  which  we  know  to  have  suffered 
severely.  The  harm  done  to  Assyria  is  also  in  the  prophet's 
mind,  though  he  does  not  picture  its  fall  so  vividly  as  does  his 
successor  Nahum.  His  declaration  of  the  need  of  reform  in 
Judah  is,  however,  as  striking  as  anything  in  Jeremiah.*  Our 
chronology  is  here  uncertain,  but  it  may  be  that  these  prophe- 
cies, with  the  near  approach  of  the  Scythians,  stimulated  the 
people  in  carrying  out  the  reforms  of  Josiah. 

This  time  Judah  was  spared.  The  scourge  of  God  fell  heavily 
upon  her  neighbours,  but  the  anticipation  of  immediate  judg- 
ment for  Judah  was  not  fulfilled.  The  invasion  was  in  fact  to 
her  benefit,  for  the  Assyrian  empire  was  so  weakened  that  it 
could  no  longer  oppress  its  remote  dependency.  Nor  was  it  the 
Scythians  alone  that  now  pressed  upon  Nineveh.  To  the  east  a 
new  power  had  arisen  in  Media,  a  kingdom  which  was  strong 
enough  to  attempt  the  siege  of  Nineveh  even  before  the  Scythian 
invasion.1  This  siege  was  indeed  unsuccessful,  for  the  Median 
king  (Cyaxares)  was  compelled  to  look  to  his  defences,  now 
threatened  by  the  barbarian  irruption.  But  this  was  only  a  tem- 
porary diversion.  As  soon  as  the  pressing  exigency  was  met,  he 
returned  to  his  plans.  Assyria  had  lost  both  strength  and  pres- 
tige. Its  most  important  dependency  Babylon,  always  unruly, 

*Jer.  4s-1*.  Undoubtedly  when  Jeremiah  wrote  down  this  prophecy 
he  was  thinking  of  the  invasion  by  Nebuchadrezzar,  then  impending.  But 
the  occasion  of  the  prophet's  first  speaking  the  passage  was  the  Scythian  ir- 
ruption, and  the  description  draws  its  colours  from  this  event. 

1  So  it  is  natural  to  interpret  the  opening  verse  of  the  book  (Zeph.  i '). 

*Zeph.  31"7  is  evidently  directed  against  Jerusalem,  but  the  rest  of  the 
chapter  is  of  a  different  tenor  and  must  be  of  later  date. 

*  It  may  not  have  come  to  an  actual  siege — see  Wellhausen  on  Nahum,  I ', 
Skizien  und  Vorarbeiten,  V,  p.  156. 


JOSIAH   AND   HIS   SONS  2/7 

had  also  seized  its  opportunity.  Nabopolassar,  the  Assyrian 
viceroy,  elevated  himself  to  the  throne  and  made  an  alliance 
with  the  Medes.  The  alliance  was  cemented  by  the  marriage  of 
a  daughter  of  Cyaxares  to  the  crown  prince  Nebuchadrezzar.  A 
simultaneous  attack  was  made  upon  Assyria,  and  after  a  pro- 
longed siege  Nineveh  fell.  The  city  was  so  completely  de- 
stroyed that  its  location  was  for  many  centuries  forgotten.1 

The  feelings  with  which  the  people  in  Jerusalem  saw  this  trag- 
edy enacted  are  well  set  forth  by  the  prophet  Nahum.  We 
seem  to  read  the  words  of  an  eye-witness  in  this  vivid  descrip- 
tion— the  great  city  is  thrown  into  confusion  at  the  approach  of 
the  enemy ,  the  streets  are  filled  with  troops  mustering  for  de- 
fence ;  the  horses  gallop,  the  chariots  rattle  over  the  pavements, 
their  wheels  strike  fire  ;  the  foot-soldiers  with  their  red  shields 
man  the  walls.  But  all  is  in  vain.  The  defences  are  stormed, 
the  palace  is  plundered,  the  queen  herself  is  carried  away  in 
the  midst  of  her  attendants — dishevelled,  sobbing,  beating  their 
breasts  in  despair.  The  city  is  given  over  to  sack,  her  enor- 
mous treasures  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  invaders.  The  old  lion 
who  plundered  all  the  world  for  his  cubs,  who  strangled  right 
and  left  for  his  lionesses — now  his  lair  is  invaded,  he  and  his 
cubs  are  slain.  The  mighty  city  is  destroyed,  the  multitudes 
that  boasted  in  her  strength  and  riches  have  flown  like  the  locusts 
which  lodge  in  the  hedges  in  swarms  at  night,  but  when  the  sun 
gets  warm  take  their  flight  and  leave  no  trace  behind.1 

There  is,  however,  more  here  than  the  natural  joy  of  the  Juda- 
ite  over  the  impending  destruction  of  the  great  oppressor.  The 
prophets  had  taken  pains  to  declare  that  Yahweh  moves  these 
great  nations  for  His  own  purposes.  And  these  purposes  must 
be  purposes  of  justice  which  His  Day  will  declare.  Isaiah  was 
sure  that  when  the  Assyrian  had  accomplished  the  commission 
of  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  he  in  turn  would  receive  his  reward. 
Isaiah  was  at  last  vindicated.  Assyria  had  long  served  as  the 

1  The  exact  date  of  the  fall  of  Nineveh  is  not  yet  ascertained.  The  yeari 
607  and  606  B.C.,  both  have  their  advocates.  Cf.  the  paper  by  Johnston  in 
the  Journal  of 'the  American  Oriental  Society,  xxii.,  2,  p.  20  ff. 

1  Nahum  2  and  3.  The  text  is  uncertain  in  places,  but  the  general  sense 
U  plain ;  cf.  Nowack  in  the  Handkommentar,  and  Wellhausen  in  the  Skitttn 
und  Vorarbeiten.  A  free  rendering  of  the  book  is  given  by  Duff,  Old  Tit* 
lament  Theology,  II,  pp.  31-3$. 


2/8  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

tod  in  Yahweh's  hand,  but  now  the  instrument  was  itself  pun- 
ished. So  we  must  understand  Nahum's  opening  sentences : 

"  Yahweh  is  a  jealous  and  avenging  God.  He  meditates  ven- 
geance on  His  enemies,  and  He  plots  against  His  adversaries. 
Yahweh  is  patient  and  of  great  strength,  but  He  will  not  leave 
unpunished.  In  storm  and  whirlwind  is  His  path,  and  the  clouds 
are  the  dust  of  His  feet. ' '  1 

The  God  of  History  is  showing  Himself  to  be  a  just  God — 
this  is  the  conviction  of  the  prophetic  school.  And  we  can  see 
how  the  dominant  party  in  Jerusalem  under  Josiah  would  draw  a 
conclusion  favourable  to  their  policy.  It  was  shortly  after  the 
great  reform  (we  may  suppose)  when  these  messages  came,  giving 
assurance  of  the  downfall  of  Nineveh.  The  people  of  Yahweh 
had  been  spared  by  the  Scythians;  now  they  were  to  see  the 
end  of  Assyria.  What  more  evident  than  that  their  God  was 
smiling  on  their  observance  of  His  commands  as  laid  down  in 
the  Book  of  Instruction  !  Jeremiah,  indeed,  was  of  another 
opinion.  He  set  small  store  by  the  people's  obedience,  and  ap- 
parently saw  nothing  hopeful  in  the  fall  of  Nineveh.  He  still 
harped  upon  justice  and  righteousness,  forbade  oppression  and 
fraud,  hinted  or  asserted  that  Judah  was  worse  than  the  sister 
kingdom  whose  sins  had  been  so  signally  punished  a  hundred 
years  before.  He  even  went  so  far  as  to  rebuke  the  people's 
trust  in  the  Temple,  and  declared  that  Yahweh  would  be  as 
ready  to  destroy  this  dwelling-place  as  he  had  been  to  destroy 
the  older  temple  at  Shiloh — whose  ruins  near  the  great  north 
road  might  still  be  seen  by  the  curious  traveller.* 

In  all  this,  the  pessimistic  preacher  seems  to  have  stood  alone. 
His  nearest  friends  were  out  of  patience  with  him,  so  that  Yah- 
weh warned  him  of  the  machinations  of  his  own  family.  To  all 
appearance  his  clan  had  resolved  to  get  rid  of  him  by  treachery 
and  violence.  Doubtless  it  seemed  too  bad  that  after  all  that 
had  been  done  to  meet  the  will  of  Yahweh  this  Cassandra-voice 
would  not  be  quiet.  There  was  consolation  in  the  thought  that 
this  was  the  only  one — a  chorus  of  prophets  applauded  king  and 
people,  and  pronounced  that  all  was  going  well.  The  mass  of 

1  Nahum,  I  *•  *. 

1  Jer.  7  *"15.     It  is  difficult  to  fix  the  exact  date  of  these  earlier  chapters  of 
Jeremiah,  but  this  discourse  must  have  been  pronounced  at  a  time  when  the 
had  special  occasion  to  feel  confidence  in  their  sanctuary. 


JOSIAH   AND   HIS   SONS  2/9 

the  people  were  of  the  opinion  that  Yahweh  was  again  smiling 
upon  them.  It  was  natural  that  Josiah  himself  should  share  their 
view,  and  it  is  not  difficult  on  this  theory  to  account  for  the  act 
by  which  he  lost  his  life. 

When  the  fall  of  Nineveh  was  seen  to  be  near  at  hand  a  new- 
old  world-power  appeared  upon  the  scene.  Egypt  had  been  un- 
der the  rule  of  Assyria  and  had  had  a  period  of  division  and 
weakness.  But  a  new  dynasty  had  asserted  itself,  its  founder  be- 
ing Psammetich  I.,  a  Libyan  soldier  who  saw  the  capabilities  of 
Greek  mercenaries,  with  whose  help  he  made  himself  master  of 
the  country.1  His  own  exploits  were  confined  to  his  proper  ter- 
ritory and  he  was  even  compelled  to  pay  a  heavy  tribute  to  keep 
the  Scythians  from  invading  the  country.  But  his  son  Necho, 
who  came  next  to  the  throne,  was  more  fortunate,  or  more  am- 
bitious. In  fact,  it  was  inevitable  that  an  Egyptian  King  when 
once  secure  of  his  position  should  inherit  traditions  of  Asiatic 
conquest.  The  moment  seemed  favourable  for  extending  the 
power  of  Egypt  over  Syria — Syria  which  had  so  often  been  under 
Egyptian  suzerainty.  Assyria  was  moribund ;  its  estate  was  about 
to  be  divided.  Necho  did  not  know — and  if  he  had  known 
might  not  have  cared — that  Babylon  claimed  the  southern  and 
western  provinces,  allowing  Media  to  possess  the  north  and  east. 

Possession  would  be  a  strong  point  in  Necho's  favour.  In  the 
year  608  B.  c. ,  therefore,  he  marched  into  Palestine  on  the  way  to 
secure  for  himself  all  Syria  as  far  as  the  Euphrates.  Josiah  opposed 
him  and  was  killed.  The  Hebrew  account  says  that  the  bat- 
tle took  place  at  Megiddo  in  the  Great  Plain.  This  was  out- 
side Josiah's  proper  territory,  and  if  the  account  is  accurate  we 
must  suppose  that  Josiah  was  called  into  service  with  other 
princes  of  the  region  by  the  Assyrian  governor.  Even  then  it 
would  have  been  better  to  choose  more  defensible  ground  farther 
south.1  The  difficulty  is  met  if  we  suppose  the  Hebrew  writer 
to  have  confused  Megiddo  with  some  other  name.  Such  a  name 
is  suggested  by  Herodotus,  who  speaks  of  Necho  as  defeating  the 
Syrians  at  Magdolos.  A  Migdal,  near  the  coast,  which  would 

1  His  father  had  been  governor  of  one  of  the  districts  into  which  the  coun- 
try was  then  divided.  On  this  (the  twenty-sixth)  Egyptian  dynasty,  see 
Wiedemann,  Geschichte  des  Alien  Atgyptens  (1891),  p.  171  ff. 

1  If  Necho  (as  some  suppose),  came  by  ship  to  Accho,  he  would  hardly 
march  by  way  of  Megiddo  to  reach  northern  Syria. 


280  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

meet  all  the  requirements,  is  located  by  the  book  of  Joshua  in  the 
territory  of  Judah  not  far  from  the  Philistine  border.1 

Josiah's  motive  for  the  attack  is  not  given.  We  may  suppose 
that  he  was  loyal  to  the  Assyrian  Empire  and  thought  it  his  duty 
to  defend  it.  In  view  of  the  consistent  hatred  of  foreign  nations 
held  by  the  national  party  in  Jerusalem  this  is  hardly  probable. 
The  alternate  theory  has  much  to  recommend  it — that  Josiah  felt 
virtually  independent  of  Assyria  and  had  no  mind  to  be  brought 
under  the  control  of  Egypt.  Strongly  under  the  influence  of  the 
Book  of  Instruction,  and  persuaded  that  he  had  carried  out  its 
directions,  he  looked  for  the  favour  of  Yahweh,  and  thought  this 
favour  must  follow  him  in  any  encounter  with  the  enemies  of 
Judah.  He  may  have  gone  farther  in  his  confidence  and  ambi- 
tion. Traditions  of  David's  great  empire  would  naturally  arouse 
in  him  a  desire  to  restore  the  ancestral  glories  of  his  house. 

Few  instances  in  history  are  better  calculated  to  enforce  the 
lesson  that  God's  thoughts  are  not  our  thoughts,  nor  His  ways 
man's  ways.  When  the  two  armies  met,  Josiah  was  slain  by  the 
archers — in  the  preliminary  skirmish,  it  would  seem — and  his 
officers  brought  the  body  to  Jerusalem,  where  it  was  placed  in  the 
sepulchre  which  he  himself  had  prepared.*  The  grief  of  the  peo- 
ple was  intense,  and  to  all  appearances  universal.  Whatever  the 
limitations  of  the  king  may  have  been,  his  righteousness  and  de- 
votion had  won  the  respect  of  all.  Three  hundred  years  later  his 
death  was  the  subject  of  folk-songs.8  The  mourning  was  unabated 
some  months  after  the  sad  event,  as  we  learn  from  Jeremiah.4 
From  the  same  source  we  learn  that  Josiah  was  a  just  ruler,  for 
the  prophet  contrasts  his  conduct  with  that  of  Jehoiakim :  "  Did 
not  thy  father  eat  and  drink  and  act  justly  and  rightly?  Then 
it  went  well  with  him.  He  judged  the  cause  of  the  poor  and  the 
needy — then  it  was  well.  Is  not  this  to  know  me  ?  saith  Yah- 

1  Josh.  15",  where  the  name  is  given  as  Migdal-gad.  The  statement  of 
Herodotus  is  found  in  II,  159.  Winckler's  statement  (Geschifhte  Israels,  I, 
163  f.)  is  convincing.  Landau  (Die  Phdnizier  p.  14)  locates  the  battle  at 
Strato's  Tower,  the  site  of  the  New  Testament  Cesarea,  on  the  coast. 

*  2  Kings,  23  w  '. 

'  The  Chronicler  must  have  some  ground  for  his  assertion  that  "the  sing- 
ing men  and  singing  women  have  spoken  of  Josiah  in  their  elegies  up  to  tht 
present  time  "  (2  Chr.  35  M). 

•  "  Weep  not  for  the  dead,  neither  bemoan  him ;  but  weep  sore  for  him 
that  goeth  away  " — Jehoahaz  is  meant  (Jer.  22  "•  "). 


JOSIAH   AND    HIS   SONS  28l 

weh."  Such  language  from  the  sternest  moralist  of  the  time  is 
high  praise.  It  is  made  more  emphatic  by  the  fact  that  Jeremiah 
never  speaks  with  approval  of  the  great  religious  reform  on  which 
Josiah  laid  so  much  stress. 

The  rash  act  of  Josiah,  and  his  consequent  death,  brought 
his  kingdom  into  the  vicissitudes  of  external  politics.  Pharaoh 
Necho,  it  would  seem,  was  willing,  for  the  time  being,  to  leave 
Judah  in  quiet  while  he  was  securing  more  remote  districts. 
Now  that  Josiah  had  forced  the  issue,  notice  must  be  taken  of 
the  succession.  During  the  next  few  years  the  struggle  between 
Egypt  and  Babylon  repeated  the  struggle  of  a  century  earlier  be- 
tween Egypt  and  Assyria,  and  Judah  was  a  mere  counter  in  the 
game,  in  one  case  as  in  the  other.  The  people's  misery  was  in- 
creased, not  only  by  the  heavy  tribute  exacted  by  whichever 
master  held  the  power,  but  by  internal  discord  and  by  the  vac- 
illating policy  of  their  kings.  These  kings  also  left  much  to  be 
desired  in  their  personal  character.  Two  of  them  reigned  so 
short  a  time  as  to  make  no  impression.  Of  the  other  two,  one 
was  a  selfish  and  luxurious  despot,  the  other  a  man  of  no 
strength  of  character — a  mere  figure-head  in  the  court,  alto- 
gether subservient  to  his  corrupt  and  short-sighted  officers. 

On  the  death  of  Josiah  (B.C.  608)  the  popular  choice  fell  upon 
his  second  son,  Shallum,  who  assumed  the  name  Jehoahaz  on 
ascending  the  throne.  What  principles  were  involved,  or  what 
was  the  motive  for  passing  over  the  older  son,  is  not  told.  We 
may  conjecture  that  the  party  of  independence  was  able  to  put 
its  candidate  upon  the  throne.  The  Pharaoh,  however,  was  in 
actual  control  of  the  situation,  and  had  an  observant  eye  on  so 
important  a  fortress  as  Jerusalem.  In  his  progress  through  Syria 
he  seems  to  have  met  no  effective  opposition,  and  had  already 
reached  Ribla  on  the  Orontes.  Hither  he  summoned  the  newly 
elected  king.  An  attempt  to  evade  the  summons  would  have 
been  vain,  and  Jehoahaz  obeyed— only  to  be  thrown  into  chains 
by  the  angry  over-lord.  He  was  carried  away  to  Egypt,  and  his 
older  brother,  Eliakim,  was  put  on  the  throne.  Necho  changed 
his  name  to  Jehoiakim,  apparently  as  an  affirmation  that  it  was 
Yahweh  who  was  really  giving  Judah  into  the  hands  of  Egypt. 
The  victory  over  Josiah  was  interpreted  as  a  manifestation  of  the 
will  of  Judah's  God — just  as  Sennacherib,  at  an  earlier  time, 
claimed  the  help  of  Yahweh  as  his  justification  in  invading  Judah. 


282  OLD  TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

In  the  further  exercise  of  his  sovereignty  the  Egyptian  laid  upon 
Judah  a  tribute  of  a  hundred  talents  of  silver  and  a  talent  of  gold. 
This  amount  Jehoiakim  collected  by  a  direct  tax.1 

All  that  we  know  of  Jehoahaz  is  that  his  sad  fate  impressed 
both  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel.2  Jehoiakim  (607-597)  received 
more  attention,  but  not  more  favourable  attention,  from  Jere- 
miah. At  a  time  when  his  kingdom  was  impoverished  by  the 
exactions  of  Egypt,  he  was  possessed  by  the  royal  mania  for  build- 
ing. He  was  more  concerned  to  vie  with  Ahab  in  the  beauty  of 
his  palace,  "panelled  with  cedar  and  painted  with  vermilion,'1 
than  he  was  to  follow  his  father's  example  in  administering  justice. 
He  not  only  compelled  the  artisans  to  work  for  him  without 
wages,  but  he  set  the  example  of  selling  justice — in  no  other  way 
can  we  understand  the  accusation  that  he  exploited  his  position 
for  gain,  and  that  his  eyes  were  fixed  only  on  shedding  innocent 
blood,  and  on  violence,  and  robbery.*  This  mania  looks  like 
that  which  God  sends  upon  the  victims  of  destruction;  and  so 
Jeremiah  regarded  it. 

The  Egyptian  predominance  in  Syria  was  short-lived.  While 
the  Babylonians  and  Medes  were  occupied  in  giving  Nineveh  the 
finishing  stroke,  Pharaoh  Necho  was  able  to  accomplish  his  de- 
signs in  the  west.  The  various  districts  were  taken  in  possession, 
one  after  the  other,  until  the  Euphrates  was  reached.  But  the 
Babylonians  were  not  inclined  to  relinquish  any  rights.  They 
were  the  heirs  of  Nineveh,  except  so  far  as  they  were  bound  by 
the  agreement  made  with  the  Medes.  Nabopolassar  regarded 
himself,  as  by  right  of  conquest,  over-lord,  not  only  of  Syria,  but 
of  Egypt  itself.  The  actual  commander  of  the  forces  was  Nebu- 
chadrezzar, a  prince  of  ability  in  more  than  one  direction.  The 
year  after  the  fall  of  Nineveh  he  met  the  Egyptian  army  at  Car- 
chemish,  on  the  Euphrates,  and  inflicted  upon  them  a  crushing 

1  The  sum  seems  disproportionately  divided  between  the  two  metals,  and 
we  should,  perhaps,  read  ten  talents  of  gold,  with  one  recension  of  the 
Greek  version.  The  passage  is  2  Kings,  23  M.  See  Kittel  in  his  commentary. 
The  name  Jehoiakim  (Yahweh-establishes)  may  be  a  direct  answer  to  the 
claim  made  in  the  name  Jehoahaz  (Yahweh-holds-fast). 

*Jer.  22",  Ezek.  19*-*. 

'  Jer.  22 1W*.  Some  slight  changes  in  the  text  are  necessary,  for  which 
the  reader  may  consult  Cornill's  edition  in  Haupt's  Sacred  Books  of  the  Old 
Testament  (1895).  Giesebrecht  finds  Solomon  alluded  to  rather  than  Ahab 
(I/andkommentar). 


JOSIAH  AND   HIS  SONS  283 

defeat.  The  date  (B.C.  605)  marks  one  of  the  turning  points  in 
the  world's  history.1  By  it  Babylon  established  its  claim  to  the 
Assyrian  empire.  Nebuchadrezzar  followed  up  his  success,  receiv- 
ing the  submission  of  the  Syrian  states  as  far  as  the  boundary  of 
Egypt.  He  marched  with  his  army  throughout  the  whole  terri- 
tory, but  when  about  to  enter  Egypt  he  received  news  of  his 
father's  death,  and  hastened  by  express  the  nearest  way  through 
the  desert  to  Babylon. 

The  whole  progress  from  Carchemish  to  Philistia  occupied  but 
a  few  months,  and  it  was  to  be  expected  that  so  rapid  a  conquest 
would  not  be  permanent.  The  Hebrew  historian  relates  sum- 
marily as  usual,  saying  only  that  in  Jehoiakim's  days  "Nebu- 
chadrezzar came  up  to  Babylon  and  Jehoiakim  became  his  serv- 
ant for  three  years,  then  he  turned  and  rebelled  against  him."1 
From  a  verse  in  Ezekiel  it  has  been  supposed  that  Jehoiakim 
voluntarily  sent  an  embassy  to  vow  allegiance  to  Nebuchad- 
rezzar. He  was,  however,  indebted  to  the  Pharaoh  for  his 
crown  in  the  first  place  and  it  is  not  strange  that  his  secret 
preference  was  for  his  old  master.  The  rebellion  seems  not  to 
have  been  confined  to  Judah,  but  to  have  included  a  consider- 
able number  of  Syrian  states.  They  depended  upon  Egypt, 
which  again  proved  to  be  a  broken  reed.  The  Hebrew  narrative 
is  again  so  brief  as  to  be  obscure:  "The  King  of  Egypt  came 
no  more  forth  from  his  land,  for  the  King  of  Babylon  had  taken, 
from  the  Wadi  of  Egypt  to  the  river  Euphrates,  all  that  belonged 
to  the  King  of  Egypt."' 

It  was  when  the  first  news  of  the  approach  of  the  Babylonians 
reached  Jerusalem  that  Jeremiah  renewed  his  warnings,  predict- 
ing that  Yahweh  was  about  to  destroy  His  city  and  Temple  as 
He  had  laid  Shiloh  waste.  To  the  hearers  this  seemed  to  be 
treason.  The  bold  prophet  was  arrested  by  the  priests  and 
prophets  and  brought  before  the  princes  for  judgment.  The 
princes  found  precedent  for  releasing  him,  in  the  case  of  Micah, 
who  had  uttered  a  similar  prophecy  but  had  been  spared  by 

1  The  battle  must  have  taken  place  very  early  in  the  year  ;  cf.  Winckler 
Alttestamentliche  Untersuchungen,  p.  83. 

1  2  Kings,  24  *.  The  chronological  difficulties  are  set  forth  by  Kittel  in  his 
commentary.  McCurdy  (History,  Prophecy,  and  the  Monuments,  III,  p.  167) 
supposes  we  should  read  six  years  for  the  three  of  the  text, 

*2  Kings,  24 T. 


284  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

Hezekiah.  Jeremiah  was  therefore  released — he  had  influential 
friends  as  we  know — but  a  man  named  Uriah  who  was  of  the 
same  way  of  thinking  was  so  threatened  that  he  fled  to  Egypt. 
Jehoiakim's  influence  in  Egypt  was  such  that  he  was  able  to  send 
for  the  offender  and  bring  him  back  to  Jerusalem,  where  he  was 
executed.  The  incident  throws  light  not  only  on  the  danger  in 
which  Jeremiah  was  from  this  time  on,  but  on  the  strength  of 
party  feeling  in  Jerusalem. 

The  disorders  in  the  Syrian  states  were  so  marked  that  Ne- 
buchadrezzar established  his  headquarters  at  Riblah  on  the  Orontes 
for  several  years.  Not  able  to  finish  the  guerilla  war  by  a  single 
blow  he  sent  detachments  of  his  army  where  the  need  was  most 
evident.  This  method  of  procedure  is  indicated  by  the  Hebrew 
author,  who  says  that  Nebuchadrezzar  sent  against  Judah  "  bands 
of  Chaldeans,  bands  of  Aram,  bands  of  Moab,  bands  of  Am- 
mon. ' ' l  The  bands  of  Chaldeans  were  regular  Babylonian 
soldiers.  The  others  were  irregulars  enlisted  for  this  sort  of 
service.  The  Bedawin  doubtless  gave  the  king  much  trouble, 
and  he  was  obliged  to  employ  the  means  which  God  and  nature 
had  put  into  his  hands.  Although  not  himself  a  cruel  or  vindic- 
tive man,  it  seemed  to  him  legitimate  thus  to  harry  rebels  into 
submission.  At  last,  however,  he  was  able  to  appear  before 
Jerusalem  with  a  regular  army — or  rather  the  army  had  already 
invested  the  city  when  the  king  appeared.  Jehoiakim  mean- 
while had  died  and  so  escaped  the  vengeance  he  had  merited. 
His  son  Jehoiachin  was  recognised  as  king  by  the  Jerusalemites. 
But  as  Egypt  made  no  move,  the  scarcely  crowned  monarch  saw 
the  necessity  of  surrender,  and  with  his  family  gave  himself  un- 
conditionally into  the  hands  of  the  Babylonians. 

The  city  was  spared,  but  Jehoiachin  was  carried  to  Babylon, 
where  he  was  kept  in  prison — or  perhaps  only  under  guard — till 
the  accession  of  Evil-Merodach  in  the  year  561  B.C.  Jeremiah 
uttered  a  brief  lament  over  the  fate  of  the  young  king.  Ezekiel 
also,  who  was  one  of  the  train  which  accompanied  him  to 
Babylonia,  describes  the  young  lion  that  was  taken  in  a  pit  and 
brought  in  a  cage  to  Babylon.1 

1  2  Kings,  24  *.  On  the  length  of  time  Nebuchadrezzar  had  his  head- 
quarters at  Riblah,  see  Winckler  in  Keilinschr.  und  Altts  Test.  *p.  108. 

*Jer.  22M~SO,  cf.  13  18"",  Ezek.  19*-*.  It  has  been  suggested  that  Jehoia- 
chin and  his  court  were  mildly  treated  in  order  to  intimate  that  he  might  be 


JOSIAH   AND   HIS  SONS  285 

Although  the  city  did  not  suffer  the  extremity  of  siege  at  this 
time,  Nebuchadrezzar  was  not  minded  to  let  it  go  unpunished. 
That  he  carried  away  the  palace  treasures  and  a  part  of  the 
vessels  of  the  Temple  is  what  we  might  expect.1  More  important 
for  history  was  the  forced  emigration  of  the  principal  inhabitants. 
Besides  the  members  of  the  court,  the  Babylonian  carried  away 
the  leading  men  of  the  city,  officials,  men-at-arms,  and  master- 
artisans.  His  idea  was  to  break  the  power  of  the  nation,  so  that 
it  would  not  again  rebel.  We  may  suppose  that  Egyptian  sym- 
pathisers were  especially  marked  for  this  punishment,  which  the 
king  thought  would  be  exemplary.  Or,  he  may  have  had  in 
mind  Assyrian  precedent,  as  we  saw  it  in  the  case  of  Samaria, 
only  he  hesitated  to  go  the  Assyrian  length.  It  was  natural  to 
suppose  that  the  leading  men  of  the  nation  being  once  out  of  the 
way,  there  would  be  no  more  suggestion  of  revolt.  The  sequel 
shows  how  the  wisest  statesmen  may  miscalculate. 

The  impression  made  upon  faithful  Judaites  by  these  disorders, 
incursions,  and  triumph  of  the  Chaldeans,  is  reflected  in  the  little 
book  which  bears  the  name  of  Habakkuk.  The  author  is  known 
to  us  only  by  this  sigh  and  meditation  over  the  problems  of  his 
time.  He  seems  to  be  one  of  those  who  felt  that  Judah  had 
shown  herself  righteous  before  Yahweh  by  carrying  out  the  com- 
mands in  the  Book  of  Instruction.  But  this  righteousness  had 
not  obtained  the  approval  of  God,  or  the  prosperity  which  had 
been  promised.  Instead  of  peace  there  had  come  renewed  and 
more  cruel  warfare.  The  Chaldeans — a  hasty  and  violent  nation — 
are  going  through  the  earth  to  seize  what  is  not  theirs.  If  Yah- 
weh is  indeed  of  purer  eyes  than  to  behold  iniquity,  how  does 
this  comport  with  His  government  of  the  world?  As  things  are, 
we  see  confusion  and  trouble,  instead  of  the  peace  for  which  we 
had  hoped.  Nor  can  we  find  comfort  in  the  thought  that  this  is 
for  the  glory  of  Yahweh.  The  victor  rejoices  in  his  own  strength, 
and,  if  he  worships  at  all,  he  worships  his  own  weapons  as  divine. 
With  such  thoughts,  the  prophet  finds  refuge  in  prayer,  and  then 
receives  the  message  on  which — although  it  does  not  solve  the 

restored  in  case  Zedekiah's  conduct  was  not  satisfactory ;   so   Erbt,  Jeremia 
und  seine  teit  (1902)  p.  23. 

1  All  the  golden  vessels  which  Solomon  had  made  are  specified  by  the 
Hebrew  author — 2  Kings,  24".  It  should  be  remembered,  however,  that 
the  Temple  had  been  repeatedly  plundered  since  the  time  of  Solomon. 


286  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

world -problem — he  is  able  to  stay  his  soul:  "The  righteous 
shall  live  in  his  fidelity."  l  The  relation  of  God  to  the  individ- 
ual believer  is  becoming  a  matter  of  experience. 

The  first  deportation  took  place  in  the  year  597  B.  c.  It  is  an 
event  of  the  greatest  importance  for  the  future  of  the  chosen  peo- 
ple. Eight  thousand  heads  of  families  is  the  computation  of  a 
Hebrew  writer.*  This  would  imply  a  train  of  forty  thousand 
people.  These  were  settled  in  Babylonia  in  a  community  of 
their  own.  Their  hope  for  an  early  return  held  them  together 
till  the  fall  of  Jerusalem.  By  this  time  they  had  begun  to  fit 
themselves  to  the  situation,  and  to  maintain  something  of  their 
separate  life  as  against  the  heathenism  about  them.  They  were 
reinforced  by  a  few  of  their  compatriots  later,  and  were  thus 
enabled  to  begin  that  life  of  sojourn  which  has  been  the  life  of 
Judaism  down  to  the  present  day. 

The  untimely  death  of  Josiah,  the  success  of  Egypt  and  then 
the  Chaldean  invasion,  as  well  as  the  personal  character  of  Jehoia- 
kim,  must  have  undone  a  large  part  of  the  work  of  reform.  This 
conclusion  may  be  drawn  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  and  it  is 
confirmed  by  the  discourses  of  Jeremiah.  We  have  already  had 
occasion  to  quote  from  this  remarkable  man,  but  we  may  now 
note  more  in  detail  the  experience  which  he  went  through.  The 
title  of  weeping  prophet,  given  him  as  the  supposed  author  of  the 
book  of  Lamentations,  makes  a  false  impression.  He  did  indeed 
weep,  as  every  oriental  weeps,  in  time  of  calamity,  but  it  would 
be  wrong  to  picture  him  whining  or  sobbing,  or  bathed  in  tears. 
His  general  attitude  is  that  of  the  stern  judge,  compelled  by 
truth  and  by  fidelity  to  conscience  to  denounce  the  sinfulness 
of  the  people  whom  he  yet  loved.  His  courage  in  thus  standing 
alone  against  the  men  of  his  time,  justifies  his  own  comparison  of 
himself  to  a  brazen  wall  and  an  iron  tower.  He  seems  to  have 
been  of  a  gentle  and  affectionate  nature.  His  love  of  his  country 
is  undoubted — the  best  evidence  is  that  he  loathed  her  shame. 
He  knew  that  if  he  delivered  his  message  he  would  be  contra- 
dicted, scoffed  at,  abused  as  a  traitor.  The  prompting  of  his 
heart  was  to  keep  silent.  But  the  word  was  too  strong  for  him — 
he  could  not  forbear.  So  he  went  on  speaking  the  message  as  it 
was  given  him,  knowing  all  the  time  that  he  was  alienating  his 

1  Hab.  2  *.     The  last  chapter  of  the  book   seems  to  belong  in  a  later  time. 
1 2  Kings,  24  ".     The  ten  thousand  of  v. 14  seems  to  be  a  round  number. 


JOSIAH   AND   HIS   SONS  287 

friends,  angering  the  mob,  offending  the  rulers.  Privately  he 
expostulated  with  his  God,  pleaded  with  Him,  wept  before  Him, 
relieved  his  feelings  by  pouring  out  maledictions  upon  his  perse- 
cutors. And  his  only  consolation  was  a  renewed  call  to  duty 
with  the  assurance  that  the  worst  was  yet  to  come. 

What  we  find  surprising  in  Jeremiah's  long  career  is  the  uni- 
formity of  his  message.  For  Josiah  he  had  respect  and  even  af- 
fection. But  the  state  of  Judah  was  not  satisfactory  to  him  even 
in  the  exaltation  of  the  great  reform.  It  must  have  been  about 
the  time  of  the  reform  that  he  delivered  a  discourse  which  might 
be  taken  as  summing  up  his  message.  Speaking  to  Judah  in  the 
name  of  Yahweh,  he  says  : 

"  I  remember  the  love  of  thy  youth,  the  affection  of  thy  honey- 
moon, thy  following  me  into  the  desert.  .  .  .  What  fault 
did  your  fathers  find  in  me  that  they  deserted  me  and  followed 
after  nothingness,  and  themselves  became  vain  ?  .  .  .  I 
brought  you  into  the  garden-land  to  eat  its  fruit  and  its  produce, 
but  you  defiled  my  land  and  made  my  heritage  an  abomination. 
The  priests  do  not  say  :  Where  is  Yahweh  ?  Those  whose  busi- 
ness is  instruction,  do  not  know  me.  The  shepherds  of  the  peo- 
ple have  rebelled  against  me.  The  prophets  prophesy  by  Baal 
and  walk  after  what  does  not  help.  .  .  .  Go  to  the  shores  of 
Cyprus  and  look,  and  send  to  Kedar  and  inquire  carefully  whether 
the  like  of  this  has  taken  place — has  any  nation  exchanged  its 
god  for  another  ?  But  my  people  has  exchanged  its  Glory  for 
that  which  does  not  help."  l 

It  is  easy  to  see  that  Jeremiah  has  adopted  the  parable  of  Hosea. 
Judah  is  Yahweh's  wife.  She  was  faithful  in  the  first  flush  of 
youthful  affection,  but  now  she  has  deserted  Him,  running  after 
the  Baals.  The  conclusion  of  the  discourse  points  out  that  a 
woman  who  is  married  to  another  may  not  return  to  her  first  hus- 
band. Hence  the  prophet  argues  that  Judah  is  for  ever  taboo  to 
her  covenant  Lord,  and  repentance  is  vain.  The  repentance  he 
has  in  mind  is  probably  the  ebullition  of  feeling  in  the  reform 
movement.  In  a  discourse  which  borrows  the  language  of  Deu- 
teronomy he  emphasised  the  covenant  made  with  the  fathers  when 
they  came  out  of  Egypt,  but  only  to  point  out  that  the  covenant 
had  been  broken  and  that  the  outlook  was  hopeless:  "Can 
prayers  or  sacrificial  flesh  take  away  thine  evil,  or  canst  thou  thus 

:  Jer.  2  l~n,  cf.  3  *•*,  which  seems  to  be  the  conclusion  of  the  same  discourse. 


288  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

be  delivered  ?  "  l  The  rhetorical  question  is  an  emphatic  nega- 
tive. The  prophet  would  have  it  otherwise.  He  tries  to  inter- 
cede for  his  people  as  though  to  ask  that  their  repentance  may  be 
accepted.  But  he  is  forbidden  to  pray  for  them,  and  told  that 
though  the  most  effectual  intercessors  of  past  times  (Moses  and 
Samuel)  were  to  appear  on  behalf  of  the  people,  all  would  be  in 
vain.  The  ear  of  Yahweh  is  closed. 

The  prophet's  mind  seems  to  have  dwelt  much  on  the  burden 
of  guilt  inherited  from  the  past.  The  sins  of  Manasseh  and  his 
time — how  could  present  well-doing  atone  for  these  ?  On  ac- 
count of  these  alone  Yahweh  must  punish,  and  to  them  was  added 
the  habitual  craving  of  the  people  for  the  old  gods.  Even  in  their 
reform  measures  they  were  making  the  old  mistake  of  supposing 
that  Yahweh  was  concerned  chiefly  about  ritual.  Scornfully  He 
inquires  concerning  the  new  enrichments  of  the  service  :  "  Why 
does  incense  from  Sheba  come  before  me  and  sweet  cane  from 
a  far  country?  Your  burnt  offerings  are  not  accepted,  nor  are 
your  sacrifices  well  pleasing  to  me."  So  far  as  Yahweh  cares, 
they  may  put  their  burnt  offerings  and  their  sacrifices  together 
and  eat  them  themselves ;  and  He  roundly  declares  :  "I  spoke 
not  with  your  fathers,  nor  did  I  command  them  in  respect  to 
burnt  offerings  and  sacrifices  the  day  I  brought  them  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt ;  but  this  thing  I  commanded  them  :  Hearken  to 
my  voice  and  I  will  be  your  God  and  you  shall  be  my  people."  * 
To  hearken  to  the  voice  of  Yahweh  is  to  do  right.  Jeremiah  is 
quite  clear  as  to  what  is  meant.  Objurgating  the  false  confidence 
in  the  Temple,  as  was  noted  above,  he  adds:  "  If  you  practise 
justice  between  man  and  man,  if  you  do  not  oppress  the  client, 
the  fatherless,  the  widow,  if  you  do  not  shed  innocent  blood  in 
this  place,  or  go  after  other  gods  to  do  evil — then  I  will  make 
you  dwell  in  this  place."1  Properly  speaking,  ritual  has  no 
place  at  all  in  this  list  of  requirements. 

The  recrudescence  of  the  old    abuses   under  Jehoiakim,  to- 

*Jer.  II 1S — emended  text. 

1  Ibid.,  "Jnt.  The  passage  shows,  with  a  clearness  which  none  can  mis- 
take,  that  Jeremiah  knew  nothing  of  any  divinely  given  Levitical  legislation. 
On  sacrifices  cf.  6*°,  7".  The  allusion  to  incense  quoted  above  indicates 
that  it  is  something  new  in  the  Temple  service.  Probably  Babylonian 
influence  may  be  traced  here. 

*  Ibid. ,  7  &"T.  The  verses  immediately  follow  the  one  which  describes  the 
false  confidence. 


JOSIAH   AND   HIS  SONS  289 

gether  with  the  personal  character  of  that  monarch,  only  made 
the  prospect  darker.  It  was  in  the  fourth  year  of  this  king  that 
Jeremiah  was  pressed  in  spirit  to  give  a  solemn  testimony.  He 
was  prevented  from  going  to  the  Temple  for  some  ritual  reason. 
But  it  was  a  fast  day,  when  the  people  would  come  to  worship  in 
large  numbers.  He  therefore  had  his  friend  Baruch  write  down 
at  his  dictation  an  epitome  of  his  discourses  and  read  it  before 
the  multitude.  His  object  was,  no  doubt,  to  show  the  consist- 
ency of  his  message.  For  twenty  years  this  was  what  he  had 
declared  to  the  people.  So  far  forth  he  was  defending  his  own 
call — for  consistency  is  one  mark  of  fidelity.  But  the  incident 
only  accentuated  the  opposition  of  the  prophet  to  the  leaders. 
While  the  book  was  a-reading,  one  of  the  king's  officers  brought 
intelligence  of  it  to  the  royal  council  then  in  session.  Perhaps 
they  were  even  then  deliberating  on  the  alliance  against  Nebu- 
chadrezzar. They  sent  a  messenger  and  brought  Baruch  before 
them  and  had  him  read  the  book.  Assuring  themselves  that  it 
was  the  genuine  dictation  of  Jeremiah,  they  advised  Baruch  to 
seek  a  place  of  concealment.  At  the  same  time  they  took  pos- 
session of  the  book  and  brought  it  to  the  king.  One  of  them 
began  to  read  it  aloud,  but  no  more  than  three  or  four  pages 
were  read  before  the  king  became  angry,  cut  the  roll  to  pieces 
and  threw  it  into  the  brazier  burning  before  him.1  He  also  or- 
dered the  arrest  of  Jeremiah  and  Baruch,  but  they  could  not  be 
found.  At  the  command  of  Yahweh,  however,  the  contents  of 
the  roll  were  recorded  on  another  roll  with  additions  from  the 
recollection  of  the  prophet. 

The  roll  thus  rewritten  probably  became  the  nucleus  of  our 
present  book  of  Jeremiah.  The  earlier  chapters  of  the  book  bear 
the  marks  of  such  composition.  In  them  we  seem  to  hear  the 
author's  apologia  pro  vita  tua.  He  tells  us  how  he  heard  the 
voice  of  Yahweh  commanding  him  to  preach  ;  how  at  this  time 
he  foresaw  calamity  coming  upon  his  people ;  how  he  would 
have  refused  on  account  of  his  youth ;  how  he  has  been  faithful 
in  delivering  the  message.  At  times  he  records  for  us  the  strug- 
gle which  went  on  between  his  natural  inclination  and  the  over- 
powering Word  of  Yahweh.1  All  this  was  calculated  to  impress 

1  Jer.  36.     The  material  must  have  been  papyrus,  otherwise  an  intolerable 
tmoke  would  have  resulted. 
*Jer.  i«,  6",  ii  nn;  i8"ff. 


290  OLD    TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

the  reader,  or  hearer,  with  the  genuineness  of  the  call,  and  with 
the  fidelity  of  the  one  who  received  it. 

In  spite  of  the  nature  of  the  message  there  was  still  a  possibility 
that  the  final  doom  might  not  be  put  into  execution.  "  Perchance 
the  house  of  Judah  will  listen  to  all  the  evil  I  am  planning  to  do 
them,  so  as  to  turn  from  their  evil  way — then  I  will  forgive  their 
iniquity  and  their  sin."  Yahweh  is  not  so  bound  by  His  pur- 
poses that  He  cannot  change.  The  potter  who  finds  the  vessel  he 
is  making  not  shaped  to  his  mind,  can  crush  the  clay  together 
and  mould  it  into  a  different  form.  So  Yahweh  has  power  and 
freedom.  While  there  is  life  there  is  hope — but  the  hope  which 
hangs  on  to  the  last  breath  of  the  dying  man  is  a  very  slender  hope 
indeed.1  Certainly  if  the  sinfulness  continues,  the  punishment  is 
sure. 

The  king  who  burned  the  book  without  even  hearing  it  was  not 
likely  to  be  deterred  from  any  step  on  which  he  had  set  his  heart. 
And  we  may  suppose  that  the  incident  was  a  turning-point  in 
Jeremiah's  own  feeling.  He  became  convinced  that  the  evil 
would  certainly  come.  From  this  time  on  he  had  the  calmness  of 
a  man  who  knows  the  worst.  The  testimony  was  kept  up,  that  the 
people  might  be  without  excuse.  And  we  must  remember  that  a 
different  school  of  prophets  was  singing  in  another  key.  There 
were  plenty  of  these  to  assure  the  people  that  they  should  not  see 
sword  or  famine.  Their  activity  was  a  challenge  to  Jeremiah. 
His  silence  might  be  construed  as  giving  assent  to  their  false 
hopes.  The  sharpness  of  the  issue  was  not  moderated  even  to  the 
end,  when  Jeremiah  had  the  poor  satisfaction  of  seeing  his  pre- 
diction verified  in  the  destruction  of  his  country. 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  Deuteronomistic  school  con- 
tinued their  literary  work  after  the  finding  of  the  now  famous  book 
in  the  Temple.  We  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  they  were 
inactive  during  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim.  The  more  discouraging 
external  circumstances  seemed  to  be,  the  more  tenaciously  they 
would  hold  on  to  their  own  point  of  view.  They  therefore  sup- 
plemented the  book  which  was  now  their  favorite  study,  by  in- 
serting further  commandments  and  by  expanding  the  hortatory 
sections.  As  Yahweh  seemed  about  to  desert  His  people,  the 
record  of  earlier  blessings  became  more  precious.  To  an  author 

1  Chapter  18  (the  potter)  is  designed  to  indicate  Yahweh's  right  to  change 
His  plan  according  to  circumstances. 


JOSIAH  AND   HIS  SONS  29! 

of  this  school  we  may  attribute  the  poem  now  included  in  the 
book  of  Deuteronomy  and  called  the  Song  of  Moses.1  The  com- 
position puts  into  rhythmical  form  the  prophetic  rebuke  of  Israel. 
Yahweh,  the  Most  High,  chose  Israel  as  His  possession ;  He  led 
the  people  in  the  wilderness,  and  brought  them  into  the  land  of 
milk  and  honey.  But  Israel  grew  prosperous  and  rebellious — re- 
jected its  God  for  others,  and  so  aroused  His  jealousy.  Hence 
His  threat  of  visitation.  But  the  punishment  will  show  them  that 
the  false  gods  cannot  save.  So,  when  they  cry  to  Him,  He  will 
hear  and  save,  and  destroy  their  enemies.  With  such  hopes  of  a 
speedy  sentence  upon  the  oppressive  Chaldeans,  faithful  men  nour- 
ished their  hearts  in  this  time  of  trouble. 

Jeremiah  carried  on  his  campaign  of  protest  in  the  last  year  of 
Jehoiakim  by  an  object  lesson.  When  the  Chaldean  army  in- 
vaded the  land,  the  country  people  took  refuge  behind  the  walls  of 
Jerusalem.  Among  them  came  the  clan  of  Rechabites,  which  we 
have  already  had  occasion  to  mention  in  connection  with  Jehu.1 
Jeremiah  took  note  of  their  presence,  and  one  day  brought  them 
to  the  Temple,  and  set  wine  before  them.  They  refused  to  drink, 
and  gave  as  a  reason  the  vow  of  their  ancestor,  Jonadab  ben 
Rechab.  This  vow  bound  them  to  Israel's  ancient  mode  of  life 
in  the  desert — they  were  not  to  drink  wine,  or  to  build  houses,  or 
to  plant  fields  or  vineyards.  This  they  had  faithfully  observed, 
and  no  pressure  was  strong  enough  to  make  them  disobey.  This 
fidelity  of  theirs  was  in  strong  contrast  to  the  conduct  of  Judah. 
They  were  faithful  to  a  mere  human  injunction  ;  Judah  had  re- 
fused to  keep  a  solemn  covenant  with  Yahweh. 

It  was  not  without  abundant  monition,  therefore,  that  the 
people  of  Jerusalem  saw  their  fate  approaching.  In  one  respect, 
indeed,  the  prophet's  expectation  was  not  fulfilled  by  the  event. 
Jehoiakim  died  in  his  bed  and  was  buried  in  the  sepulchre  of  the 
kings — whereas  Jeremiah  had  declared  that  his  unburied  carcass 
should  be  fought  over  by  the  dogs.  But  this  is  a  mere  matter  of 
detail.  For  the  young  Jehoiachin  and  the  queen -mother,  Jere- 
miah had  a  dirge  lamenting  the  loss  of  the  flock,  scarcely  com- 
mitted to  them  before  they  were  carried  into  captivity. ' 

1  Deut.  32.   The  text  is  corrected  in  places  by  the  commentaries. 
*  Above,  p.  191.  The  account  of  the  incident  is  contained  in  Jer.  35- 
'  Jer.  13  1*-'°.   The  parable  of  the  spoiled  girdle  in  the  early  part  of  the 
same  chapter  may  belong  in  the  same  period. 


292  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

Nebuchadrezzar  appointed  Jehoiachin's  uncle — Mattaniah— 
the  third  son  of  Josiah,  to  come  to  the  throne — changing  his  name 
to  Zedekiah,  the  Justice  of  Yahweh.  Whether  this  expresses  Neb- 
uchadrezzar's claim  to  be  the  executor  of  that  justice  upon  the 
unfortunate  Jehoiachin  cannot  now  be  made  out.  The  people 
might  have  so  interpreted  it  with  profit  to  themselves.  Nebu- 
chadrezzar expected  his  "blood-letting"  to  have  a  sobering 
and  regenerating  effect  on  the  body  politic.  The  result  was  the 
exact  opposite  of  the  expectation. 

Nor  is  this  hard  to  account  for.  The  people  had  for  a  long 
time  been  threatened  with  a  judgment  from  Yahweh.  Those 
who  remained  behind  in  Jerusalem  felt  that  the  judgment  had 
now  fallen,  and  it  had  not  been  as  bad  as  they  had  expected. 
Whether  Isaiah's  doctrine  of  the  Remnant  had  been  widely 
adopted  or  not,  it  was  now  virtually  applied.  The  prophetic 
preaching  always  assumed  that  those  who  should  repent  would  be 
spared — is  not  the  justice  of  God  pledged  not  to  destroy  the  right- 
eous with  the  wicked  ?  Nothing  was  easier  than  to  argue  that 
if  those  who  repent  are  to  be  spared,  then  those  who  are  actually 
spared  are  the  ones  who  have  repented.  The  dregs  of  the  peo- 
ple, left  behind  in  Jerusalem,  laid  this  flattering  unction  to  their 
souls :  ' '  We  have  been  spared  by  Yahweh,  therefore  we  are 
righteous  in  His  sight."  Then  there  was  the  excitement  of  the 
new  situation.  The  leading  men  had  been  carried  away,  but 
the  framework  of  the  government  remained.  A  new  king  was  on 
the  throne,  and  his  court  must  not  lack  in  titles  and  dignities. 
We  can  imagine  the  scramble  for  offices  with  high-sounding 
titles.  The  self-sufficiency  of  parvenus  and  their  self-confidence 
is  proverbial.  The  new  king  was  a  good-natured  but  nerveless 
man.  His  courtiers  were  ignorant,  arrogant,  intolerant,  over- 
bearing in  their  conduct  toward  their  monarch. 

The  people  at  large  were  intoxicated  with  joy  at  their  es- 
cape, and  at  their  new  importance.  The  exiles  had  been  obliged 
to  dispose  of  their  property  on  such  terms  as  they  could  make. 
The  purchasers  or  usurpers  felt  that  they  had  great  bargains. 
They  were  now  the  gentry  and  landed  proprietors  of  the  nation. 
That  they  showed  the  pride  that  goes  before  destruction  is  evi- 
dent. Jeremiah  does  not  hesitate  to  give  his  opinion.  After 
the  deportation  he  saw  two  baskets  of  figs — the  one  very  good, 
the  other  very  bad.  The  voice  of  Yahweh  told  him  that  the 


JOSIAH   AND   HIS   SONS  293 

good  represented  the  exiles ;  the  bad  were  those  who  were  left 
behind.  Ezekiel  also  alludes  to  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem, 
who  say  of  the  exiles :  "  They  are  far  from  the  land  of  Yahweh ; 
to  us  is  the  land  given  for  a  possession."  l  Upon  men  in  this 
frame  of  mind  exhortation  has  no  effect. 

The  new  rulers  were  not  long  in  trying  their  hands  at  the  game 
of  politics.  Egypt  was  still  ready  to  promise  great  things.  The 
neighbours  of  Judah  were  tired  of  their  divisions,  and  they  began 
to  realise  that  they  were  oppressed  by  the  Babylonians.  Plans 
were  soon  agitated  for  a  common  effort  at  independence.  Am- 
bassadors from  Edom,  Moab,  Ammon,  Tyre,  and  Sidon  came  to 
Jerusalem  to  concert  measures.  Jeremiah  appeared  in  a  way 
which  we  should  call  sensational.  He  made  a  number  of  wooden 
yokes.  One  of  them  he  wore  himself;  the  others  he  carried  for 
the  foreign  ambassadors.  His  advice  was  given  in  words  as  well 
as  by  symbols,  to  the  effect  that  they  should  ' '  put  their  necks 
into  the  yoke  of  the  king  of  Babylon."  *  But  the  large  majority 
of  the  prophets  was  on  the  other  side.  They  confidently  declared 
that  within  two  years  the  vessels  of  the  Temple  which  Nebuchad- 
rezzar had  carried  away  should  be  brought  back,  and  one  Han- 
aniah  in  an  ecstasy  snatched  the  yoke  from  Jeremiah's  neck 
and  broke  it,  with  the  exclamation:  "Thus  saith  Yahweh:  So 
will  I  break  the  yoke  of  the  king  of  Babylon  from  the  neck  of  all 
the  nations." 

Jeremiah  contented  himself  at  this  time  with  expressing  a  hope 
that  the  word  might  be  true — though  he  pointed  out  plainly  that 
the  analogies  of  prophetic  revelation  were  all  against  it.  It  was 
only  after  some  time  that  the  word  of  Yahweh  was  borne  in  upon 
him  so  that  he  could  make  a  positive  declaration.  This  he  did 
in  the  words  :  "  Thus  saith  Yahweh  :  Thou  hast  broken  the  yoke 
of  wood,  but  I  will  make  a  yoke  of  iron.  I  will  put  a  yoke  of 
iron  on  the  necks  of  all  these  peoples  that  they  may  serve  the 
king  of  Babylon."  The  too  sanguine  Hananiah  received  also 
a  personal  message  to  the  effect  that  he  should  die  the  same  year, 
which  was  fulfilled. 

If  we  are  to  find  room  in  the  life  of  Zedekiah  for  the  visit  to 

1  Ezek.  it11:  on  the  text,  Toy's  edition  in  Haupt's  series,  or  Giesebrecht 
in  the  Handkommentar.  Cf.  Jer.  24. 

1  Jer.  27  and  28.  The  account  is  not  from  Jeremiah  himself,  but  seems  to 
rest  on  good  information. 


294  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

Babylon  of  which  mention  is  made  toward  the  close  of  the  book 
of  Jeremiah1  it  must  be  about  this  time.  It  is  altogether  likely 
that  Nebuchadrezzar  would  get  news  of  the  projected  alliance  and 
would  call  Zedekiah  to  account.  The  statement  in  our  book, 
however,  is  in  a  very  late  passage  and  we  cannot  be  certain  that 
it  is  based  on  trustworthy  tradition.  That  Nebuchadrezzar's 
headquarters  were  at  Riblah  for  a  considerable  period  we  have 
already  noted. 

The  exiles  in  Babylonia  entertained  similar  illusions  to  those 
held  at  Jerusalem,  and  the  idea  of  an  early  return  was  impressed 
upon  them  by  their  prophets.  There  seems  nothing  improbable 
therefore  in  the  account  of  Jeremiah's  letter  to  them,  called  out 
by  messages  from  Babylon  hostile  to  the  prophet.  The  letter 
warns  the  exiles  against  false  hopes  of  return  ;  seventy  years  must 
elapse  before  the  visitation  for  which  they  sighed.  The  period 
of  seventy  years — which  would  allow  at  least  two  generations  to 
grow  up — is  not  intended  to  keep  alive  the  hopes  of  the  people, 
but  to  emphasise  the  fact  that  the  return  is  a  long  way  off.  It  is 
necessary  therefore  that  the  people  adapt  themselves  to  their  cir- 
cumstances, make  homes  for  themselves,  raise  up  children,  and  seek 
the  welfare  of  the  great  kingdom  into  which  they  have  now  been 
incorporated.1  We  know  also  from  Ezekiel  that  the  exiles  were 
unwilling  to  believe  in  the  coming  calamity  for  Jerusalem  and  we 
naturally  suppose  that  they  were  looking  for  an  early  return. 

In  cherishing  vain  hopes,  in  framing  vain  plots,  the  years  passed 
till  589  B.  c.,  when  Nebuchadrezzar  was  obliged  to  send  an  army 
to  Palestine.  At  its  first  appearance  before  Jerusalem  a  spasm  of 
repentance  passed  over  the  people.  Understanding  from  the  proph- 
et that  justice  and  kindness  would  obtain  the  favour  of  Yahweh, 
they  looked  about  for  some  of  the  duties  left  undone  which  they 
might  still  perform.  In  the  Book  of  Instruction  they  found  the 
ordinance,  contained  also  in  the  older  Book  of  the  Covenant,* 
that  the  slave  of  Hebrew  birth  should  be  set  free  after  six  years' 
service.  The  law  seems  always  to  have  been  a  counsel  of  perfec- 

*Jer.  51**.  On  Zedekiah's  obligation  to  Nebuchadrezzar  we  have  Ezekiel '» 
explicit  statement  (Ezek.  17");  compare  also  the  same  prophet's  parable  of 
the  eagle  and  the  cedar  branch  (17  1'10). 

1  Jer.  29.  The  chapter  in  its  present  form  is  apparently  of  comparatively 
late  date. 

*Deut.  i5IWi;  Ex.  21  1~4.     The  differences  do  not  here  concern  us. 


JOSIAH   AND   HIS   SONS  295 

tion.  All  the  more  would  it  be  a  proof  of  their  new  zeal  for 
obedience  to  Yahweh.  King  and  people  therefore  entered  into 
a  solemn  engagement.  According  to  an  ancient  ceremonial,  a 
calf  was  sacrificed  and  cut  in  halves.  By  walking  between  the 
pieces  the  engagers  imprecated  the  divine  vengeance  upon  them- 
selves in  case  they  should  violate  their  oath.1 

For  the  moment  it  seemed  as  if  the  strenuous  effort  would  be 
rewarded.  Pharaoh  Hophra  (Apries)  marched  with  his  army 
into  Palestine  with  the  apparent  intention  of  defending  his  allies. 
The  Chaldean  army  therefore  temporarily  withdrew  from  Jeru- 
salem to  meet  the  threatened  attack.  The  Jerusalemites  con- 
cluded that  the  expected  deliverance  had  taken  place,  and  with 
indecent  haste  violated  their  oath  and  forced  the  just  liberated 
slaves  back  into  servitude.  It  is  needless  to  comment  on  the 
levity  and  lack  of  feeling  of  responsibility  shown  by  this  transac- 
tion. No  wonder  that  Jeremiah  despaired  of  such  a  people. 

The  Pharaoh  was  again  a  vain  help.  Whether  he  was  defeated 
in  a  pitched  battle,  as  is  asserted  by  Josephus,*  or  whether  he  re- 
treated without  fighting,  as  is  implied  in  the  account  in  Jeremiah, 
cannot  certainly  be  made  out.  The  effect  upon  the  fortune  of 
Jerusalem  was  the  same,  for  in  a  short  time  the  Chaldean  army 
returned  and  a  formal  siege  of  the  city  was  begun.  This  lasted 
for  a  year  and  a  half,  during  which  the  city  was  closely  invested, 
and  the  battering-rams  were  kept  at  work.  The  besieged  de- 
fended themselves  with  courage  and  skill.  Otherwise  we  cannot 
account  for  the  length  of  time  they  held  out — weakened  as  they 
were  by  the  recent  deportation  of  the  flower  of  their  army.  They 
suffered  from  famine  and  pestilence,  and  probably  from  internal 
dissension  as  well.  The  traditions  preserved  for  us  in  the  book 
of  Jeremiah  probably  give  a  correct  picture  of  the  time,  and  we 
may,  therefore,  follow  the  fortunes  of  the  prophet  as  there  re- 
counted. 

When  the  siege  was  temporarily  raised  by  the  Chaldeans  Jere- 
miah attempted  to  go  to  his  own  village  of  Anathoth.  He  may 
have  thought  he  could  protect  his  little  property  by  being  on  the 
spot ;  as  a  non -combatant  he  would  be  spared  by  the  invaders; 

1  Jer.  34*"".  Note  especially  v.1*  and  compare  Gen.  IS*"18,  where  Yahweh 
and  Abraham  enter  into  covenant  by  a  similar  rite.  For  Babylonian  analo- 
gies cf.  Keilinschriften  und  A  lies  Testament1,  p.  597. 

» Josephus,  Ant.    X,  VII,  3 ;  Jer.  37  \ 


296  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

possibly  he  reasoned  that  if  he  were  out  of  the  city  there  would  be 
one  mouth  Jess  to  feed.  But  any  move  he  might  make  would  be 
looked  upon  with  suspicion.  He  had  aroused  the  violent  hatred 
of  the  national  party  by  opposing  their  plans  for  revolt.  For  a 
long  time  he  had  been  regarded  as  a  traitor.  It  was  natural  that 
the  guard  should  apprehend  him  at  the  city  gate  and  accuse  him 
of  desertion  to  the  enemy. 

Those  who  had  charge  of  him  were  prepared  to  make  treason 
odious,  and  they  thrust  him  into  the  most  noisome  place  at  their 
command.  This  was  an  old  cistern,  the  floor  of  which  was  deep 
with  slime.  The  account  of  his  experiences  here  may  be  read  at 
length  in  the  Biblical  text.  After  being  released  from  the  imme- 
diate danger  of  suffocation — this  was  on  the  intercession  of  a  slave 
of  the  king — he  was  kept  in  the  king's  prison  till  the  end  of  the 
siege.  The  king  would  have  set  him  at  liberty,  but  could  do  noth- 
ing against  the  will  of  the  nobles.  He  even  sent  for  the  prophet 
secretly  and  asked  his  advice.  Jeremiah  consistently  urged  him 
to  surrender  before  the  final  storm  and  sack  of  the  city.  But  this 
Zedekiah  could  not  get  himself  to  do. 

From  the  king's  fear  that  the  Judaites  in  the  camp  of  Nebu- 
chadrezzar might  abuse  him,  we  gather  that  a  considerable  num- 
ber had  already  made  their  peace  with  the  Babylonians.  Zede- 
kiah was  but  a  shadow  king  over  a  desperate  band  of  men.  His 
interviews  with  Jeremiah  always  had  the  same  termination. 
He  even  asked  Jeremiah  to  prevaricate  concerning  the  subject  of 
their  conversations.  At  last  the  end  came.  The  bread  in  the 
city  was  exhausted  about  the  same  time  that  a  breach  was  made 
in  the  city  wall.  Zedekiah,  at  the  head  of  the  few  soldiers  still 
alive,  tried  to  cut  his  way  through  the  enemy,  hoping  to  escape 
down  the  Jericho  road.  In  the  wilderness  a  band  of  desperate 
men  might  be  able  to  maintain  themselves  even  against  the  Baby- 
lonians. 

The  Chaldeans  were  too  expert  to  allow  anything  of  this  kind 
to  succeed.  The  sortie  was  fortunate  in  that  the  king  eluded  the 
immediate  besiegers.  But  the  party  was  pursued  and  in  the 
Jordan  valley  they  were  overtaken  and  captured.  Nebuchadrezzar 
seems  to  have  remained  in  his  headquarters  at  Riblah.  Hither 
the  Judaite  king  with  his  forlorn  train  were  brought.  It  is 
scarcely  a  matter  for  surprise  that  Nebuchadrezzar  dealt  severely 
with  them.  Zedekiah's  sons  were  put  to  death  before  his  eyes, 


JOSIAH   AND   HIS  SONS  297 

and  he  himself  was  Winded  and  taken  to  Babylon,  where  he 
ended  his  days  in  prison.  A  large  number  of  his  officers  were 
executed. 

The  poor  king  had  paid  the  penalty  of  his  weakness.  The 
city  over  which  he  was  nominal  ruler  was  more  to  blame.  It 
had  shown  itself  constantly  inconstant.  Seditious,  obstinate, 
and  lacking  in  good  faith,  it  had  provoked  the  utmost  severity  of 
the  conqueror.  It  was  given  over  to  sack.  The  Temple  was  plun- 
dered of  all  that  was  valuable  and  was  then  set  on  fire.  The 
houses  of  the  people  also  were  looted  and  burned.  It  seems  to 
have  been  the  king's  purpose  to  make  the  place  uninhabitable. 
A  miserable  remnant  of  people  had  survived  the  siege.  Such  as 
did  not  perish  in  the  sack  or  by  the  hand  of  the  executioner 
were  carried  away  to  Babylonia.  Three  detachment  are  men- 
tioned in  the  book  of  Jeremiah,  amounting  to  four  thousand  six 
hundred  heads  of  families.1  Of  these  only  a  little  over  eight  hun- 
dred were  taken  at  the  fall  of  the  city.  Of  the  poorer  classes 
there  were  left  enough  to  prevent  thecountry's  reversion  to  jungle. 
The  district  was  made  part  of  the  Babylonian  province  and  a 
governor  was  appointed  with  his  seat  at  Mizpah — an  ancient 
sanctuary  not  far  from  Jerusalem. 

The  governor  appointed  was  one  Gedaliah,  a  Judaite  of  the 
Babylonian  party.  Jeremiah  was  given  his  choice  of  going  to 
Babylon  or  of  remaining  in  his  ruined  country.  He  chose  to 
remain.  In  the  circumstances  we  can  see  that  barbarism  was 
the  first  danger.  Gedaliah  caused  it  to  be  known  that  there  was 
to  be  a  settled  government,  and  attempted  to  organise  his  ad- 
ministration. Fugitives  began  to  return,  and  some  of  the  guerilla 
bands  which  had  been  living  on  the  country  came  in  and  sub- 
mitted. The  captain  of  one  such  band — Ishmael  by  name — 
could  not  brook  even  the  semblance  of  power  in  the  hands  of  a 
renegade — for  such  he  must  have  held  Gedaliah  to  be.  Ishmael 
himself  was  of  royal  blood,  and  perhaps  thought  to  repeat  the 
career  of  his  ancestor  David.  He  was  supported  (secretly  we 
may  suppose),  by  Baalis,  King  of  Ammon,  and  perhaps,  also  had 
Egyptian  encouragement.  Gedaliah,  though  warned  against  him, 

1  Jer.  52  **-".  The  paragraph  is  lacking  in  the  text  of  2  Kings,  which 
otherwise  runs  parallel  to  this  chapter.  I  have  adopted  the  conjecture  of 
Ewald  (see  Giesebrecht's  commentary)  which  makes  v.*8  refer  to  the  seven' 
teenth  year  of  Nebuchadrezzar  instead  of  the  seven  of  the  text. 


298  OLD    TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

was  unsuspicious  and  so  was  assassinated.  Ishmael  then  terrorised 
the  people.  Discovering  that  he  could  not  permanently  hold  the 
country  against  the  Babylonians,  he  started  to  cross  over  to  Am- 
mon,  carrying  with  him  some  unwilling  followers — among  them 
are  mentioned  some  ladies  of  the  royal  family. 

Whatever  his  hopes  of  establishing  a  new  Judah  beyond  the 
Jordan,  they  were  soon  frustrated.  He  was  met  by  a  stronger,  or 
more  valiant,  band  under  one  Johanan  ben  Kareah,  who  was  able 
to  rescue  his  captives  out  of  his  hand,  It  was,  perhaps,  after 
these  disorders  that  the  Babylonians  carried  away  the  third  of 
the  detachments  of  exiles  mentioned  above.1 

The  disconsolate  Judaites,  thus  finding  themselves  at  liberty, 
looked  around  for  some  place  where  they  might  live  in  peace. 
Egypt  was  the  only  country  that  seemed  to  hold  out  hopes,  and 
they  resolved  to  go  thither.  Jeremiah  advised  against  it,  but 
they  not  only  refused  to  listen — they  compelled  him  to  go  with 
them.  They  were  weary  of  their  unsettled  life,  weary  of  advice, 
weary  of  Yahweh.  They  refused  to  listen  any  longer  to  preach- 
ing. When  the  prophet  rebuked  them  for  continued  idolatry  of 
the  "  Queen  of  Heaven,"  they  turned  sharply  upon  him  and 
declared  that  when  they  were  faithful  to  her  service  it  went  well 
with  them,  but  that  when  they  gave  her  up  and  devoted  them- 
selves to  Yahweh  alone  all  went  wrong.  The  prophet  was  con- 
scious in  his  own  soul  of  the  falsity  of  their  reasoning,  but  he 
seems  to  have  found  no  answer  that  he  could  make  to  them. 
Tradition,  however,  ascribes  to  him  a  prediction  that  even  in 
Egypt  they  would  be  the  victims  of  the  relentless  Chaldean 
power.1  With  this  final  denunciation  of  disaster  we  lose  sight 
of  the  aged  prophet.  The  tradition  that  he  was  murdered  by 
his  unbelieving  countrymen  is  a  late  inference  from  the  story  of 
his  life.  The  Judaites  who  went  to  Egypt  at  this  time  were 
absorbed  in  the  native  population  and  lost  all  hold  upon  the 
prophetic  religion. 

1  Doubt  has  been  expressed  as  to  the  historicity  of  this  whole  account  as 
well  as  of  what  follows — see  for  example  Prof.  Nathaniel  Schmidt's  article 
"  Jeremiah  "  in  the  Encyclof.  Biblica.  But  the  narrative  seems  to  me  in  its 
main  features  to  bear  the  marks  of  historic  truth. 

*  Jer.  44.  The  chapter  seems  to  be  added  by  a  later  hand.  It  is  not  yet 
clearly  made  out  whether  Nebuchadrezzar  actually  conquered  Egypt ;  cf. 
McCurdy,  History,  Prophecy,  and  the  Monuments,  III,  p.  389  f. 


JOSIAH   AND    HIS   SONS  299 

Had  the  exiles  in  Babylonia  kept  no  firmer  hold  on  Yahweh, 
the  history  of  Israel  would  have  closed  with  the  fall  of  Jerusalem 
in  586  B.C.  We  have  traced  the  growth  of  a  nation  from  the 
scattered  tribes  which  entered  Canaan  seven  hundred  years  before 
this.  We  have  seen  the  nation  under  Solomon  attain  a  respecta- 
ble position  among  the  kingdoms  of  Asia.  We  have  noted  also 
the  disruption  and  the  consequent  loss  of  power.  The  two  little 
kingdoms  could  not  hope  to  maintain  their  independence  against 
the  powerful  empires  of  the  Euphrates  valley.  Their  misguided 
attempts  to  resist  led  to  their  ruin.  Nothing  in  their  career 
would  give  their  history  greater  importance  than  the  history  of 
Philistia  or  of  Damascus,  had  it  not  been  for  the  religion  of  Yah- 
weh and  the  exile. 

The  feeble  remnant  of  Judah,  however,  were  in  a  position  to 
carry  on  the  work  of  the  prophets.  It  was  not  without  reason 
that  up  to  this  time  the  prophets  had  complained  that  the  peo- 
ple's ears  were  deaf  to  their  message.  In  the  bonds  of  tradition, 
in  the  midst  of  wars  and  alarms,  pressed  upon  by  the  claims  of 
Egypt,  the  claims  of  Assyria  or  Babylonia,  the  claims  of  the 
party  of  independence,  we  can  hardly  wonder  that  they  could  not 
rightly  estimate  the  message  of  their  preachers.  But  when  the 
bonds  of  tradition  were  loosened  by  removal  from  their  land, 
when  they  were  protected  from  wars  and  alarms  by  their  very 
insignificance,  when  politics  were  no  longer  a  concern  to  them — 
above  all,  when  the  long-threatened  blow  had  fallen,  then  they 
had  time  for  reflection.  The  prophets  had  said  Yahweh  would 
give  over  to  destruction  the  place  which  He  had  chosen  "  to 
make  His  name  dwell  there."  The  people  would  not  believe 
that  He  would  thus  deprive  Himself  of  His  chosen  dwelling. 
But  now  He  had  done  so.  The  fearful  catastrophe  gave  them 
two  alternatives.  Either  they  must  give  up  their  faith  in  Him 
and  hold  him  to  be  a  God  too  weak  to  protect  his  own,  or  else 
they  must  believe  in  what  His  prophets  had  said.  No  doubt 
many — like  the  fugitives  to  Egypt  just  spoken  of — chose  the 
former  alternative.  These  became  worshippers  of  other  gods, 
loosened  the  ties  of  kindred,  and  became  absorbed  in  the  sur- 
rounding heathenism.  But  some  there  were  who  chose  the  other 
alternative,  held  on  to  their  faith  in  Yahweh,  and  began  to  value 
more  justly  the  words  of  the  prophets.  It  is  this  fraction  of  the 
people — a  sect,  a  church,  no  longer  a  nation — which  has  in- 


30O  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

fluenced  the  history  of  the  world.  And  it  is  with  these  that  we 
must  now  concern  ourselves. 

As  to  the  poor  of  the  people  who  were  left  in  the  district  of 
Judah,  there  is  not  much  to  say.  For  them  barbarism  was  the 
first  danger.1  They  had  all  they  could  do  to  wring  a  living  out 
of  the  reluctant  soil.  The  Bedawin  from  the  east  and  from  the 
south  overran  the  country.  Edom  was  crowded  upon  by  the 
Nabateans,  and  pushed  up  into  Judah.  A  half-century  later 
almost  the  whole  of  Judah's  territory  belonged  to  these  invaders, 
and  the  bitter  hatred  of  the  Edomites,  which  finds  expression  in 
later  times,  dates  from  this  period  of  encroachment.  The  people 
of  the  land  seem,  indeed,  to  have  kept  alive  the  religion  of  their 
ancestors.  We  read  how  men  came  with  offerings  to  the  site  of 
the  Temple,  after  the  sacred  building  had  been  destroyed.2  They 
came  in  the  garb  of  mourners,  so  that  we  cannot  suppose  them 
ignorant  of  the  calamity  which  had  fallen.  Evidently  the  sacred- 
ness  of  the  site  could  not  be  erased  by  the  destruction  of  the  edi- 
fice. At  the  place  which  Yahweh  had  once  chosen,  men  might 
still  hope  to  approach  Him.  This  was  the  feeling  of  these  poor 
people.  And  we  may  suppose  that  during  the  years  that  followed 
the  sacredness  of  the  site  was  in  some  way  kept  in  mind — per- 
haps marked  by  the  crude  offerings  which  a  peasant  or  pastoral 
people  brings  to  its  God. 

But  our  main  interest  is  now  with  the  little  community  in 
Babylonia,  which  had  followed  with  the  keenest  sympathy  the 
fortunes  of  their  native  country,  and  whose  grief  at  its  conquest 
was  not  the  less  poignant  that  they  were  so  far  away. 

1  Cf.  Ezek.  1 1 1J,  33  M. 

*  Jer.  41  *.  These  men  are  said  to  be  from  Shiloh  and  Samaria. 


CHAPTER  XV 

THE    EXILE 

IT  has  already  been  told  how  some  years  before  the  fall  of  Jem« 
salem,  a  considerable  body  of  Jerusalemites  were  carried  away  by 
Nebuchadrezzar,  and  settled  in  Babylonia.  It  would  seem  that 
they  were  not  made  slaves,  and  that  they  were  not  taken  to  the 
city  of  Babylon,  whose  proletariat  we  may  suppose  to  have  been 
already  numerous  enough.  The  indications  are  that  they  were 
settled  in  agricultural  communities  along  one  of  the  great  irrigat- 
ing canals,  to  which  the  country  then  owed  its  extraordinary  pro- 
ductiveness. The  "river"  Chebar,  of  our  text,  was  such  a 
canal.1  Babylonian  supervision  seems  not  to  have  gone  so  far 
as  to  destroy  a  certain  measure  of  autonomy.  We  hear  of  the 
Sheikhs  (Elders),  who  came  to  the  prophet  for  advice,  and  we 
naturally  suppose  that  they  preserved  something  of  their  traditi- 
onal authority. 

The  expectations  of  these  people  have  already  been  remarked 
upon.  In  the  face  of  all  human  probability  their  prophets  fos- 
tered a  hope  that  they  would  soon  return  to  their  native  land. 
Jeremiah  bitterly  opposed  these  delusions,  and  saw  plainly  that 
the  exile  would  be  of  long  duration.  But  even  he  could  hardly 
suppose  that  Yahweh  would  permanently  leave  His  people  in  the 
hands  of  foreigners.  For  the  time  being  this  hope  may  have 
made  the  exiles  cling  together,  so  that  they  were  able  to  adapt 
themselves  to  their  new  circumstances.  But  it  also  made  them 
restless  and  unwilling  to  listen  to  the  counsel  of  the  more  thought- 
ful of  their  number.  It  was  not  till  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  that  they 
were  disposed  to  look  the  situation  squarely  in  the  face.  That 
they  did  so  then,  and  that  they  were  able  to  adhere  to  the  faith 
of  Yahweh,  is  due  to  Ezekiel,  in  some  respects  the  most  remark- 
able of  Israel's  prophets. 

1  Ezek.  i !,  and  elsewhere.  References  in  Kraetzschmar,  Handkom- 
mentar  (1900),  and  in  Toy's  edition  of  the  text  (Sacred  Books  of  the  Old 
Testament,  1899). 

301 


OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

Ezekiel,  like  Jeremiah,  came  of  a  priestly  family.  The  two 
men,  however,  were  very  unlike.  Jeremiah  was  anything  but  a 
ritualist.  The  terms  in  which  he  speaks  of  the  Ark,  of  the  Tem- 
ple, of  the  sacrificial  service,  show  that  his  interest  was  not  in  any 
of  these.  Whether  he  ever  officiated  in  the  sanctuary  where  he 
so  often  spoke  to  the  people  is  doubtful.  Ezekiel  also  may 
never  have  officiated  in  the  Temple.  If  so,  it  was  because  he 
was  carried  away  when  too  young  to  be  admitted  to  a  part  in 
the  service.  But  he  was  thoroughly  saturated  with  priestly 
ideas.  Ritual  offences  have  a  much  larger  part  in  his  indictment 
of  the  people  than  is  the  case  with  the  other  prophets.  The 
form  of  his  vision  is  determined  by  the  imagery  he  has  seen  in 
the  Temple.  His  elaborate  picture  of  the  restored  Israel  shows 
us  a  commonwealth  which  lives  by  ritual.  In  him  the  ethical 
ideas  of  the  older  prophets  (and  of  the  Book  of  Instruction)  are 
for  the  first  time  united  with  the  traditions  of  the  priestly  caste. 
From  a  modern  point  of  view  this  seems  a  retrogression.  But 
men  at  a  certain  stage  of  culture  crave  ritual,  and  (humanly 
speaking)  it  was  necessary  that  the  great  moral  ideas  of  the 
prophets  should  be  thus  married  to  outward  forms  if  they  were  to 
be  brought  into  the  life  of  the  people.  The  result  was  to  shape 
the  whole  later  course  of  Jewish  thought  and  history. 

Great  wit's  to  madness  near  allied — this  is  the  thought  which 
comes  to  us  as  we  read  of  the  strange  visions  and  the  fantastic  ac- 
tions of  this  prophet.  In  fact,  Ezekiel,  like  some  other  great  re- 
ligious geniuses,  was  a  man  nervously  abnormal.  The  greatness 
of  the  crisis  through  which  he  had  passed  so  wrought  upon  him 
that  his  thought  has  in  it  something  morbid.  And  yet  the  ideas 
which  rule  him  are  sane  and  sound.  In  fact  they  are  for  the 
most  part  borrowed  from  the  older  prophets.  His  originality  is 
in  elaborating,  sometimes  to  grotesqueness,  what  his  predecessors 
have  said.  It  will  repay  us  to  notice  this  somewhat  in  detail. 

Like  his  predecessors,  Ezekiel  founded  his  claim  to  be  heard 
on  a  distinct  call  of  Yahweh.  This  call  came  to  him  in  vision. 
The  minuteness  with  which  he  describes  the  vision  is  what  draws 
our  attention.  It  was  enough  for  Isaiah  to  say  that  he  saw  Yah- 
weh in  the  Temple  seated  on  a  lofty  throne  clothed  in  robes 
whose  skirts  rilled  the  House,  attended  by  the  seraphim.  Eze- 
kiel gives  us  a  description  of  the  cherubim,  of  the  celestial  char- 
iot, of  the  throne  and  the  canopy.  From  him  we  learn  that  the 


THE   EXILE  303 

cherubim  which  bear  the  throne  are  composite  creatures  with 
four  faces.  They  have  feet  of  quadrupeds,  wings  of  birds,  hands 
of  men.  They  are  a  part  of  the  chariot  of  Yahweh.  This  char- 
iot is  provided  with  wonderful  wheels  full  of  eyes.  In  the 
midst  of  the  wheels  is  a  mass  of  flame.  Above  this  is  a  support 
resting  on  the  heads  of  the  cherubim,  and  on  this  support  is  a 
throne,  the  occupant  of  which  in  the  likeness  of  a  man  was  Yah- 
weh Himself.  The  brightness  of  burnished  brass,  the  clearness 
of  crystal,  and  the  colours  of  the  rainbow,  dazzled  the  beholder 
and  he  fell  powerless  to  the  ground. 

New  as  is  the  vision  thus  presented  to  us,  its  elements  are 
furnished  by  tradition.  Of  old,  Yahweh  was  the  God  of  the 
storm.  On  swift  clouds  He  was  accustomed  to  come  to  the  help 
of  His  people.  Of  old  also  the  cherubim  were  His  attendants — 
was  it  not  for  this  reason  they  were  represented  in  the  Temple? 
The  wheels,  the  throne,  the  fire,  the  rainbow  were  all  there  from 
a  logical  necessity. 

We  should  be  wrong  to  suppose  that  we  have  here  only  a  liter- 
ary fiction,  the  result  of  the  prophet's  reflection  on  these  features 
of  the  traditional  theophany.  No  doubt  it  was  a  genuine  expe- 
rience which  he  describes — whether  in  the  body  or  out  of  the 
body  he  would  not  be  able  to  tell.  And  it  would  not  be  hard 
for  him  to  discover  a  gracious  purpose  in  it.  He  was  in  a  strange 
land,  far  from  the  sanctuary  which  his  heart  yearned  for.  He 
was  tempted  to  feel — as  his  compatriots  already  felt — that  Yah- 
weh was  far  away.  But  by  the  vision  he  was  taught  that  Yah- 
weh could  come  to  His  servant  though  in  a  far  land. 

This  mobility  of  Yahweh  was  the  more  important  in  that  some 
of  the  Judaites  still  cherished  the  fixed  idea  that  He  could  not 
permit  the  destruction  of  His  Temple.  Though  Jerusalem  had 
once  been  forced  to  surrender,  and  though  these  very  people  had 
been  forced  to  go  into  exile,  still  they  persisted  that  the  city  was 
indestructible.  Ezekiel,  for  his  part,  was  sure  that  the  city  was 
to  be  destroyed.  What  would  become  of  Yahweh  was  a  question 
answered  by  the  celestial  chariot.  With  this  at  His  command 
He  could  retire  at  His  will  to  the  desert  of  His  ancient  sojourn, 
to  abide  there  till  His  time  to  restore  His  people  should  come. 
The  prophetic  theory  that  the  sins  of  the  people  had  made  His 
land  intolerable  to  Him  was  thus  most  emphatically  presented 
and  enforced.  The  shock  of  the  final  catastrophe  was  thus  in  a 


304  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

measure,  also,  prepared  for,  and  the  foundation  laid  for  a  new 
hope.1 

First  of  all,  however,  the  false  confidence  of  the  exiles  must  be 
shaken ;  and  Ezekiel  perceives  that  his  message  is  a  message  of 
mourning,  lamentation,  and  woe.  This  message  is  delivered  him 
by  Yahweh  in  the  form  of  a  book,  and  in  materialistic  symbolism 
he  receives  it  by  eating  it.2  He  is  told  that  he  is  sent  to  a  rebell- 
ious house.  But  he  is  to  speak  to  them  whether  they  will  hear 
or  whether  they  will  forbear.  In  fact,  they  at  first  met  the 
prophet  with  contradiction  and  scoffing.  But  the  message  came 
to  its  rights  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem. 

For  this  first  period  of  his  activity  the  prophet  spared  no  pains 
to  enforce  the  declaration  that  Jerusalem  is  to  be  destroyed.  His 
endeavours  to  make  this  plain  were  nothing  less  than  grotesque. 
At  one  time  he  took  a  clay  tablet  such  as  the  Babylonians  used 
for  writing  upon.  On  this  he  drew  the  plan  of  Jerusalem.  Then 
he  made  it  the  centre  of  a  miniature  siege — threw  up  earthworks 
about  it,  made  the  semblance  of  a  hostile  camp,  set  up  the  bat- 
tering-rams. Between  himself  and  it  he  held  a  sheet  of  iron. 
The  performance  scarcely  needed  an  interpreter.  As  he,  the 
creator  of  the  toy  city,  was  ordering  its  siege  and  holding  the 
sheet  of  iron  between  himself  and  it,  so  Yahweh  the  ruler  of  Jeru- 
salem was  arranging  the  attack  on  His  own  city  and  was  making 
Himself  impervious  to  its  appeals  for  mercy.  We  may  imagine 
the  effect  of  such  a  symbolical  action  on  the  part  of  the  prophet.* 

By  making  a  vile  bread  of  grain,  beans,  spelt,  and  lentils, 
mixed  together,  by  eating  of  this  a  fixed  ration  each  day,  and  by 
drinking  also  a  slender  allowance  of  water,  the  prophet  illustrated 
the  straits  to  which  Jerusalem  would  be  reduced  in  the  siege.4 
After  this  was  sufficiently  set  forth  he  shaved  his  hair  and  his 

1  In  my  discussion  I  assume  the  substantial  unity  and  genuineness  of  the 
Book  of  Ezekiel.  Traces  of  editorial  elaboration  are  somewhat  more  numer- 
ous than  has  been  usually  admitted,  and  I  have  some  reserve  in  regard  to  the 
middle  section  of  the  book — Chapters  25-32. 

1  Ezek.  3  *•*.      Similar  language  is  used  in  Jer.  15  16. 

1  I  assume,  of  course,  that  this  (ch.  4  1~1)  and  the  other  actions  were  liter- 
ally carried  out  as  described.  Some  readers  will  doubt  the  literalness  of  the 
prophet's  lying  on  his  side  190  days  (as  should  be  read  instead  of  390  of  the 
text).  But  a  prolonged  illness  might  easily  realise  this  feature  of  the  vision. 

*  His  protest  (4  ")  against  part  of  the  direction  shows  his  carefulness  in 
matters  of  ritual  observance. 


THE  EXILE  305 

beard  with  a  sharp  sword.  A  third  part  of  the  hair  thus  obtained 
he  burned  in  the  midst  of  his  miniature  city ;  a  third  he  smote 
hither  and  yonder  with  the  sword ;  the  most  of  the  remainder  he 
scattered  to  the  winds.  A  few  hairs  he  took  and  bound  in  his  skirt. 
But  of  these  again  a  portion  was  thrown  into  the  fire.  Again 
the  symbolism  is  quite  clear :  A  third  of  Yahweh's  people  are  to 
perish  by  famine  and  pestilence  in  the  siege  ;  another  third  will 
fall  by  the  sword  ;  the  remainder  will  be  scattered  to  all  the 
winds  of  heaven  ;  even  the  few  who  seem  to  be  spared — the  ex- 
iles1— will  not  really  be  safe  from  destruction.  All  this  will  hap- 
pen "that  they  may  know  that  I  am  Yahweh  " — that  is,  that 
they  may  know  Him  in  His  essential  nature  as  a  God  of  justice. 
If  now  a  bill  of  particulars  is  called  for,  to  show  wherein  Judah 
has  deserved  so  much  severity,  Ezekiel  is  ready  with  an  answer. 
In  vision  he  is  taken  to  Jerusalem  and  made  witness  of  what  is 
going  on  there.  Taken  by  the  Spirit  to  the  Temple  he  is  allowed 
to  inspect  what  ought  to  be  the  sanctuary  of  Yahweh.  Yahweh 
Himself  points  out  how  it  is  polluted.  Near  the  north  gate  he 
sees  the  idol  that  provokes  jealousy — evidently  an  image  of  another 
than  Israel's  God.  The  abuses  corrected  by  Josiah  had  evidently 
been  revived  by  his  successors,  but  what  god  had  received  the 
honour  of  a  place  in  the  Temple  is  unknown  to  us.  Next,  the 
prophet  is  taken  into  a  secret  chamber  within  the  Temple,  on 
whose  walls  are  portrayed  in  relief  all  sorts  of  animals  and  reptiles. 
Before  them  stand  seventy  of  the  chief  men  of  Judah,  at  their  head 
one  Jaazaniah.  Each  man  has  a  censer  in  his  hand  and  they  are 
offering  incense  to  the  pictures  on  the  walls.  Evidently  we 
have  here  some  secret  cult,  totemistic  in  its  nature.  We  are  re- 
minded of  the  ancient  serpent  worship,  banished  by  Hezekiah, 
but  we  are  also  reminded  that  a  strong  Egyptian  party  existed 
in  Jerusalem,  the  members  of  which  may  well  have  formed  a 
society  for  the  practice  of  Egyptian  mysteries.1  The  idolaters 
are  represented  justifying  themselves  on  the  ground  that  Yahweh 
has  forsaken  the  land — a  significant  indication  of  the  effect 
which  the  present  calamities  had  had  on  many  of  the  people. 

1  Or  does  he  mean  those  left  in  Canaan  who  seem  to  have  survived  the 
perils  of  the  siege  ?  The  passage  is  5  '•*.  The  same  lesson  is  set  forth  in 
another  way  in  12  1'*°. 

'  Bertholet  in  his  commentary  advocates  the  Egyptian  origin  of  this  colt 
Others  think  of  Babylonian  influence.  The  passage  is  Ezek.  8*~u. 


306  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

The  horrified  visitor  is  next  taken  to  the  north  gate,  and  there 
he  sees  a  company  of  women  seated  on  the  ground  weeping  for 
Tammuz.  Weeping  for  a  god  who  has  been  slain  is  one  of  the 
acts  of  worship  in  various  religions.  Tammuz  is  one  of  the  gods 
whose  myth  passed  over  to  the  Greeks,  among  whom  he  is  known 
as  Adonis.  His  worship  in  Syria  is  very  ancient  and  it  is  possi- 
ble that  it  was  naturalised  in  Judah  at  an  early  day.  For  the 
present  reference,  however,  it  is  sumcent  to  assume  that  he  was 
recently  introduced  from  Babylon.1  While  this  heathenism  was 
going  on,  the  prophet  saw  also  a  group  of  twenty-five  men  stand- 
ing in  the  very  entrance  of  the  temple,  between  the  vestibule  and 
the  altar.  But  instead  of  being  there  to  worship  Yahweh,  they 
had  their  backs  to  Him,  as  if  in  deliberate  insult,  while  their 
worship  was  paid  to  the  rising  sun.  We  have  already  read  of 
this  cult  among  those  banished  by  Josiah.  As  if  this  were  not 
enough,  Yahweh  declares  that  over  the  whole  land  similar  rites 
send  up  the  stench  of  their  offerings  into  His  nostrils. 

The  destruction  of  the  city  was  the  logical  conclusion  of  such 
a  state  of  things,  and  so  it  was  shown  to  the  prophet  in  his  vision. 
Ezekiel,  however,  was  a  man  to  whom  the  justice  of  Yahweh  was 
manifest  in  His  dealing  with  individuals.  Shall  the  righteous 
perish  with  the  wicked  ?  This  was  a  question  which  had  for 
some  time  been  agitating  the  more  thoughtful  men.1  Jeremiah 
was  evidently  exercised  by  it.  Ezekiel  has  thought  it  out. 
He  is  strictly  logical  in  affirming  categorically  that  when  the 
wicked  are  punished,  the  righteous  will  be  spared.  And  so  in 
his  vision  he  hears  a  command  given  to  an  angel  to  put  a  mark 
on  the  righteous  men  in  the  city,  that  the  executioners  of  the 
divine  wrath  may  know  whom  to  spare.  When  they  have  been 
marked  the  decree  goes  forth  ;  the  destroying  angels  slay  old  and 
young,  sparing  only  those  who  have  the  mark  in  their  foreheads. 
Then  fire  is  taken  from  the  altar  and  showered  upon  the  devo- 
ted city.  The  cherubim  in  the  celestial  chariot  flap  their  wings 
with  thunderous  sound  to  show  that  they  are  restive  at  being  kept 

1  Tammuz,  the  favourite  of  Ishtar,  is  the  god  of  the  spring  vegetation,  and 
his  death  is  bewailed  when  the  powerful  summer  sun  causes  the  herbs  to 
wither — see  Jastrow,  Religion  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  pp.  482  f.,  547; 
Zimmern,  in  Keilinschr.  u.  Altes  Test*  II.,  p.  397;  Frazer,  The  Golden 
Bough,  I.,  p.  278  ff. 

'Cf.  what  was  said  about  the  story  of  Abraham's  intercession  (above,  p.  250.) 


THE   EXILE  30/ 

in  such  a  scene.  When  all  has  been  ordered,  Yahweh  mounts 
His  seat  and  takes  His  departure.  On  the  Mount  of  Olives  He 
stops  to  take  a  last  lingering  look  at  His  now  desolate  habitation, 
and  then — away  ! 

Jerusalem's  sin  has  made  Jerusalem's  destruction  inevitable — 
this  is  the  constant  theme  of  the  prophet  during  this  part  of  his 
ministry,  and  he  enforces  it  in  all  conceivable  ways.  At  one 
time  the  false  confidence  of  those  remaining  in  the  city  is  derided. 
"  They  say  of  themselves  :  We  are  the  flesh  and  this  city  is  the 
caldron  ;  the  broth  has  been  poured  off,  but  we  are  safe."  *  The 
broth  that  has  been  poured  off  represents  the  exiles  who  have  been 
carried  away.  Those  who  have  escaped  deportation  regard  them- 
selves as  the  substance  of  the  nation — bone  and  muscle — and  they 
think  that  as  the  pot  protects  the  flesh  from  the  violence  of  the 
fire  so  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  protect  them  from  destruction.  The 
prophet  states  the  case  so  as  to  show  the  absurdity.1 

Ezekiel  sometimes  gives  an  unexpected  turn  to  the  parables  of 
the  older  prophets.  Isaiah  had  compared  Judah  to  a  vineyard 
planted  by  Yabweh,  and  we  may  suppose  that  this  figure  had  be- 
come current  among  the  people.  That  Judah  is  the  vine  and 
Yahweh  the  keeper  of  the  vineyard  would  be  a  comforting  thought 
in  the  midst  of  affliction.  But  Ezekiel  puts  the  thought  in  anew 
light:  "  What  is  the  vine  among  the  trees?  A  mere  twig  among 
the  trees  of  the  forest !  Is  timber  taken  from  it  for  any  work  ? 
Is  even  a  peg  to  hang  things  on  made  from  it  ?  Suppose,  now, 
it  has  been  thrown  upon  the  fire  and  both  its  ends  and  its 
middle  are  charred ;  is  it  then  good  for  anything  ?  When  it 
was  sound  it  was  of  no  use ;  how  much  less  when  the  fire  has 
charred  it!"1  The  vine  of  Yahweh  was  confessedly  of  no 
value  for  its  fruit.  But  a  barren  vine  is  the  n?ost  worthless  of 
plants.  Such  was  Judah  even  at  its  best.  But  now  its  best 
has  been  destroyed  by  the  deportation  of  Jehoiachin.  One 
cannot  ascribe  any  value  to  a  half-burned  twig. 

Less   to  our  taste — but  not  offensive  to  oriental  thought — is 

1  Chapter  n1*11.  The  messianic  conclusion  of  the  chapter  is  certainly  a 
later  insertion. 

1  In  the  later  expansion  of  the  parable  (24*-'*)  the  prophet  compares  those 
that  are  left  in  Jerusalem  to  the  rust  that  clings  to  the  caldron  and  which 
must  be  burned  off. 

•Ezelc.  IS1"*.  Israel's  place  among  the  nations  is  a  very  modest  one  in 
Ezekiel's  eyes. 


3OS  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

Ezekiel's  development  of  the  prophetic  metaphor  in  which  Israel 
appears  as  the  wife  of  Yahweh,  or  in  which  Israel  and  Judah  ap- 
pear as  His  wives.  In  Hosea,  who  first  introduces  this  figure,  we 
have  a  delicate  self-restraint.  He  contents  himself  with  declar- 
ing the  unfaithfulness  without  going  into  a  detailed  description. 
Jeremiah  is  less  refined  in  that  he  plainly  compares  the  idolatrous 
passion  of  Judah  to  the  blind  sexual  instinct  of  an  animal.  Eze- 
kiel  paints  the  actions  of  the  shameless  woman  without  reserve,  as 
the  ancient  law  stripped  her  naked  and  exposed  her  to  the  ribald 
scoffs  of  the  vulgar.  In  this  description l  he  not  only  shows  more 
bitterness  than  his  predecessors :  his  revulsion  of  feeling  carries 
him  so  far  that  he  condemns  the  whole  past  of  the  nation.  Hosea 
and  Jeremiah  recognise  a  period  when  Israel  was  faithful — the 
first  love  of  the  honeymoon.  Ezekiel  seems  to  go  so  far  as  to 
assert  that  Israel  was  erring  from  the  very  first — her  very  blood 
was  tainted,  her  father  was  an  Amorite  and  her  mother  a  Hittite. 
Even  in  her  youth  she  had  prostituted  herself  to  the  Egyptians. 

In  this  sweeping  condemnation  of  all  the  past,  Ezekiel  intro- 
duced a  mode  of  thought  which  became  prominent  in  later  times, 
What  we  now  note  is  the  interest  with  which  the  exiles  followed 
the  fortunes  of  their  native  country,  the  certainty  with  which  the 
prophet  foresaw  the  destruction  that  was  coming,  and  the  pains  he 
took  to  justify  the  ways  of  God  to  man.  As  the  final  revolt  under 
Zedekiah  was  planned,  the  prophet  was  outspoken  in  his  condem- 
nation. The  fate  of  the  rebel  was  sealed  by  his  unfaithfulness.1 
More  of  human  sympathy  is  shown  by  the  dirge  over  the  unhappy 
princes  who  have  been  carried  into  captivity — the  two  lion's  cubs 
trained  by  their  mother  to  hunt  the  prey,  but  captured  and  caged, 
and  languishing  in  confinement.1 

The  certainty  of  Jerusalem's  fall  and  the  justice  of  Yahweh  in 
destroying  it  is  the  constant  theme  of  this  first  period.  As  the 
end  approaches,  the  prophet's  cry  becomes  a  shriek.  He  sees  the 
king  of  Babylon  marching  with  drawn  sword.  As  he  approaches 

1  Chapters  16  and  23. 

1  Chapter  17,  already  mentioned  in  connexion  with  the  life  of  Zedekiah. 
That  a  cedar  branch  grows  into  a  vine  need  not  disturb  us.  The  teaching 
of  the  parable  is  perfectly  plain. 

*  Chapter  19.  The  dirge  is  the  most  distinctly  poetic  of  Ezekiel's  com- 
positions. The  mother  of  the  two  young  lions  is  the  royal  house.  Some 
suppose,  however,  that  the  queen-mother,  Hamutal,  two  of  whose  sons  cams 
to  the  throne  (Jehoahaz  and  Zedekiah)  is  intended. 


THE  EXILE  309 

Palestine  he  consults  his  oracle,1  to  see  which  country  he  shall 
first  attack.  The  oracle  indicates  Jerusalem,  and  the  city's 
fate  is  sealed.  The  sword  in  Nebuchadrezzar's  hand  becomes 
Yahweh's  sword,  the  instrument  of  His  vengeance  on  a  renegade 
people.  And  when  the  end  had  come  the  prophet  was  made  an 
example  to  the  people  by  his  personal  bereavement.  The  day 
before  the  news  of  Jerusalem's  fall  came  to  the  exiles,  Ezekiel's 
wife  was  suddenly  taken  from  him  by  death.  So  great  was  his 
grief  that  he  forgot  the  conventional  mourning  customs,  and  sat 
like  one  turned  to  stone.  And  when  the  people  manifested  their 
surprise,  he  came  to  the  consciousness  that  he  was  only  a  sign  and 
a  parable.  Great  as  was  his  grief,  so  great  should  theirs  be. 
And  so  it  turned  out.  A  fugitive  from  Jerusalem  made  his  way 
over  the  long  desert  road,  and  brought  the  terrible  news  that  Je- 
rusalem had  indeed  fallen,  and  that  Temple  and  dwellings  had 
been  destroyed.  Personal  bereavement  was  in  the  message  for 
many,  for  they  had  relatives  and  friends  in  the  far-off  land.  But 
their  grief  was  more  than  personal.  They  had  lost  home,  and 
native  country,  and  hope,  and  the  God  in  whom  they  had  trusted.* 

For  those  who  were  not  permanently  alienated  from  the  religion 
in  which  they  had  been  brought  up,  this  crisis  laid  a  new  duty 
upon  Ezekiel.  Hitherto  his  message  had  been  mourning  and 
lamentation  and  woe.  It  was  now  time  to  comfort  those  who 
had  been  smitten,  and  to  bind  up  the  hearts  that  had  been 
broken.  From  this  time  on  he  not  only  changes  the  tone  of  his 
message,  but  he  speaks  with  a  freedom  which  he  had  not  hitherto 
known.  We  may  well  suppose  that  during  the  period  when  he 
was  dreading  the  calamity  which  he  foresaw,  when  also  his  people 
heard  him  with  incredulity,  he  would  often  find  it  impossible  to 
speak  his  mind.  During  this  period  he  had  long  fits  of  silence, 
which  seemed  to  come  from  a  real  physical  inability.  When  the 
word  of  Jerusalem's  fall  came,  the  nervous  shock  seems  to  have 
affected  him  physically,  so  that  this  debility  troubled  him  no 
longer.  He  had  also  the  advantage  of  fulfilled  prophecy  on  his 
side.  The  false  prophets  and  the  necromancers  who  had  contra- 
dicted and  blasphemed  were  thoroughly  silenced.  He  himself 
could  speak  as  one  who  was  accredited  by  the  Almighty. 

The  first  danger  was  the  danger  of  despair  and  its  consequent 

1  By  the  divining  arrows,  Ezek.  21  n~u. 

1  Ibid,  24 15-n.  The  paragraph  rightly  closes  the  first  division  of  the  book. 


3IO  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

apathy.  The  people  were  now  sure  that  they  were  rejected  by 
Yahweh.  In  a  certain  sense  Ezekiel  had  contributed  to  this  im- 
pression. He  had  insisted  that  the  guilt  of  the  people  was  re- 
sponsible for  their  calamity.  Judah  was  ruined  because  she  had 
been  incurably  unfaithful.  This  was  in  line  with  the  threaten- 
ings  of  the  earlier  prophets  and  with  the  Book  of  Instruction. 
The  land  of  Yahweh  had  been  desecrated,  and  was  therefore 
given  over  to  destruction.1  The  despair  of  the  people  was  the 
logical  result  of  this  teaching:  "Our  iniquities  and  our  sins 
weigh  us  down,  and  we  are  rotting  away  in  them  "  is  their  cry. 
The  disease  was  incurable,  because  its  roots  in  the  past  could  not 
be  reached.  Or  they  put  it  in  another  way  in  a  saying  which 
passed  from  mouth  to  mouth:  "The  fathers  have  eaten  sour 
grapes,  and  the  children's  teeth  are  set  on  edge."  The  case 
was  one  of  inherited  guilt.  The  present  generation  must  suffer 
for  the  sins  of  those  who  had  preceded.1 

When  the  traditional  doctrine  thus  became  a  source  of  weak- 
ness, Ezekiel  did  not  hesitate  to  combat  it  in  the  most  forcible 
language  he  could  command.  In  his  vision  of  the  sins  of  Jeru- 
salem, he  had  refused  to  believe  that  the  righteous  would  perish 
with  the  wicked.  So  sure  of  his  ground  was  he  that  he  shut  his 
eyes  to  the  facts  of  common  life.  In  this  immediate  connexion 
indeed  he  seems  to  admit  an  exception,  perhaps  on  the  theory 
that  the  exception  proves  the  rule.  The  people  who  actually 
escaped  destruction  at  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  and  who  joined  the 
exiles  in  Babylon,  did  not  answer  his  description.  So  he  af- 
firmed that  in  this  case  Yahweh  had  spared  a  few  of  the  sinners 
in  order,  by  actual  sample,  to  convince  the  exiles  of  the  quality 
of  their  people.  In  this  way  alone  could  they  be  convinced 
that  the  punishment  was  deserved.*  Allowing  this  exception, 
however,  he  yet  makes  the  most  sweeping  declaration — "  all 
souls  are  mine ;  the  soul  of  the  father  as  well  as  the  soul  of  the 

1  In  addition  to  what  has  already  been  cited,  note  chapter  6,  against  the 
mountains  of  Israel. 

1  Ezek.  33  10.  Chapter  18  which  treats  the  subject  most  thoroughly  is  novr 
among  the  earlier  prophecies,  and  we  may  suppose  that  the  saying  which 
furnishes  the  text  was  coined  before  file  fall  of  Jerusalem  and  in  view  of  the 
first  deportation.  But  the  order  of  the  discourses  in  this  section  is  not 
original,  and  this  chapter  was  probably  inserted  out  of  its  chronological 
position. 

•/«/.,  14"-".. 


THE   EXILE  311 

son.  He  that  sins  shall  die.  A  man  who  is  righteous  and  acts 
justly  shall  live.  But  if  he  begets  a  son  who  is  lawless  and  a 
shedder  of  blood — the  son  certainly  shall  not  live,  he  shall  die  a 
violent  death,  and  his  blood  shall  be  on  himself."  l  The  reverse 
case  is  also  presented.  The  bad  father  may  beget  a  good  son. 
The  rule  (according  to  the  prophet)  applies  with  equal  certainty 
— the  good  son  lives  because  of  his  own  virtues ;  the  bad  father 
is  not  advantaged  by  his  son's  merits  any  more  than  the  son  is 
condemned  for  his  father's  vices.  Every  man  is  treated  strictly 
according  to  his  individual  conduct. 

We  readily  see  how  Ezekiel  came  to  advocate  so  one-sided  a 
theory.  Now  that  the  blow  had  fallen  he  was  making  every  ef- 
fort to  encourage  his  people.  What  he  meant  to  enforce  was  the 
possibility  of  repentance  even  in  the  worst  extremity.  While 
there  is  life  there  is  hope.  Yahweh  has  no  pleasure  in  the  death 
of  the  wicked,  but  that  he  turn  from  his  ways  and  live.  And 
that  life  and  death  are,  in  the  prophet's  view,  physical  life  and 
death  is  obvious.  The  world  beyond  the  grave  gave  him  no 
prospect  of  rewards  and  punishments.  If  he  were  to  find  justice 
in  Yahweh's  dealings  with  men,  he  must  find  it  in  this  life. 
Under  these  limitations  we  see  how  his  theory  of  individualistic 
retribution  was  a  logical  necessity. 

Before  leaving  the  chapter  we  are  considering,  we  may  notice 
the  nature  of  the  righteousness  which  Ezekiel  demands.  We 
have  already  seen  that  his  tendency  is  ritualistic.  We  expect 
him  to  emphasise  the  people's  departure  from  the  true  worship. 
And  so  he  does.  In  each  case  he  puts  among  the  sins  of  which 
men  may  be  guilty  fating  upon  the  mountains,  by  which  he 
means  violation  of  the  Deuteronomistic  injunction  of  one  altar. 
But  it  is  also  noticeable  that  he  preserves  the  good  old  prophetic 
tradition  which  regards  sins  against  one's  neighbour  as  sins  against 
God.  Adultery,  oppression,  extortion,  usury  are  the  things 
which  bring  wrath  upon  the  one  who  practises  them,  while  res- 
toration of  pledges,  distribution  to  the  needy,  clothing  the  naked, 
giving  honest  judgment  between  man  and  man,  are  the  things 
which  characterise  the  righteous  man  and  which  bring  him  Yah- 

1  The  whole  of  chapter  18  is  devoted  to  the  development  of  this  theory. 
There  is  no  attempt  at  argument,  only  repeated  affirmation  of  the  same  thing. 
The  prolixity  of  the  treatment  shows  how  the  prophet  was  wrestling  with  hi* 
thought. 


312  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

weh's  favour.  So  when  he  closes  his  list  of  virtues  with  walking 
in  Yahweh's  statutes  and  keeping  If  is  ordinances  we  must  inter- 
pret the  language  according  to  the  general  tenor  of  his  thought. 
He  stands,  in  fact,  upon  the  basis  of  the  Book  of  Instruction. 
The  idea  of  a  ritual  law  is  foreign  to  him,  though  he  himself  gave 
the  stimulus  to  the  formulation  of  such  a  law. 

Returning  now  to  the  doctrine  of  retribution — a  doctrine  which 
gave  later  thinkers  many  an  hour  of  internal  conflict — we  may 
notice  that  for  Ezekiel's  contemporaries  it  did  have  a  salutary 
effect.  They  stood  at  the  parting  of  the  ways.  The  old  national 
religion  could  not  endure  after  the  death  of  the  nation.  If  men 
were  to  retain  any  religion  at  all  (aside  from  the  crass  heathen- 
ism which  tempted  them  on  all  sides),  they  must  learn  to  come 
individually  into  relation  with  their  God.  Of  course  the  indi- 
vidual Judaite  had  always  a  dim  consciousness  of  this  relation. 
And  in  the  great  religious  leaders,  this  consciousness  was  more 
than  dim — it  was  a  vivid  realisation  of  the  presence  of  Yahweh. 
This  we  are  sure  of  in  such  a  man  as  Isaiah.  But  these  men  stood 
in  an  official  relation  to  Yahweh  as  His  mouthpieces.  The 
officers  and  courtiers  are  in  personal  intercourse  with  their  mon- 
arch, whereas  the  nation  at  large  can  claim  no  such  privilege. 
The  older  prophets  had  preached  on  the  basis  of  Yahweh's  rela- 
tion to  the  nation  as  a  whole.  They  scarcely  raise  the  question 
whether  the  individual  can  have  any  apportionment  of  fate  except 
as  he  shares  the  lot  of  the  whole  nation.  Even  Jeremiah,  though 
he  has  been  called  the  discoverer  of  individual  religion,  does  not 
get  beyond  this.  His  individual  and  personal  relation  to  Yah- 
weh is  beyond  doubt.  But  the  thought  which  oppresses  him  and 
with  which  he  agonises  is  that  in  spite  of  this  intimacy  he  is  in- 
volved in  the  fate  of  his  people. 

With  Ezekiel  the  circumstances  forced  a  new  consideration  of 
the  problem.  The  individual  comes  to  the  front  when  the  na- 
tion is  no  more.  The  prophet  boldly  declares  that  each  man 
has  his  fate  in  his  own  hands  ;  each  is  directly  responsible  to 
Yahweh.  The  supremacy  of  this  thought  in  later  Judaism  needs 
no  demonstration.  The  measure  of  Ezekiel's  insistence  upon 
his  doctrine  is  the  rigidity  with  which  he  applies  it  to  himself. 
In  the  instruction  which  he  receives  concerning  his  office  we  see 
this  finely  brought  out.  He  regards  his  office  as  that  of  a  watch- 
man on  the  city  walls — not  to  call  the  whole  city  to  arms,  but 


THE  EXILE  313 

to  warn  the  individual  of  his  danger.  We  think  of  the  walled 
town  liable  to  attack  from  guerilla  bands.  The  watchman 
on  the  wall,  as  he  sees  the  dust-cloud  on  the  horizon,  cries  out 
to  the  travellers  approaching  the  gates,  so  that  they  may  make 
haste  and  gain  the  place  of  safety.  If  the  sword  threatens  and 
the  alarm  is  given  and  the  unheeding  loiterer  is  overtaken  and 
slain,  then  his  death  lies  at  his  own  door.  But  if  the  watchman 
neglects  his  duty,  gives  no  warning,  lets  the  unsuspecting  traveller 
fall  into  the  hands  of  the  enemy,  then  the  watchman  will  be  held 
responsible — the  blood  is  upon  his  head.1  The  doctrine  of  per- 
sonal accountability  could  be  no  more  strongly  put.  The  work 
of  the  prophet  is  the  care  of  souls,  and  for  each  of  those  com- 
mitted to  him  there  will  be  a  reckoning  according  to  the  meas- 
ure of  his  opportunity. 

What  has  been  said  will  show  something  of  the  ferment  of 
new  ideas  which  began  to  work  among  the  exiles.  Ezekiel's  im- 
portance as  the  exponent  of  these  ideas  is  evident.  But  his  in- 
fluence does  not  stop  with  these.  Such  a  man  could  not  be  with- 
out hopes  for  the  future.  The  justice  of  Yahweh  might  be 
indicated  by  the  punishment  of  His  rebellious  people.  But  this 
could  not  be  the  end  of  history.  He  might  temporarily  with- 
draw from  a  Temple  too  polluted  for  His  dwelling  ;  but  the 
mind  refused  to  think  of  Him  as  for  ever  dwelling  apart  from 
those  who  love  and  worship  Him.  This  would  be  an  abdication 
of  His  place  as  God  of  the  whole  earth,  an  abandonment  of  His 
world  to  the  very  rivals  who  had  excited  His  jealousy.  He  must 
have  plans  for  the  future. 

Such  thoughts  enable  us  to  follow  with  something  like  sym- 
pathy the  constructive  work  which  Ezekiel  has  left  on  record  in 
the  second  part  of  his  book,  and  which,  viewed  apart  from  the 
man  and  his  time,  has  so  often  puzzled  the  student.  The  general 
thought  which  we  must  bear  in  mind  is  the  restoration  of  Israel  in 
a  new  and  purified  commonwealth.  The  motive  of  such  a  restora- 
tion on  the  part  of  Yahweh  is  the  vindication  of  His  name.  The 
fact  that  He  had  punished  His  own  people  was  misunderstood  by 
the  heathen.  They  thought  Him  too  weak  or  too  indifferent  to 
protect  His  own.  For  His  name's  sake,  therefore,  and  not  be- 
cause of  any  merit  in  His  people,  He  will  undertake  a  restoration. 
And  the  thoroughness  with  which  He  will  do  this  is  seen  in  the 
1  Ezek.  3  '»-",  33  >-'«. 


314  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTOR\ 

elaborateness  of  Ezekiel's  scheme.  The  subject  is  treated  in  three 
divisions.  First  comes  the  restoration  of  the  people  to  their 
land  ;  then,  the  treatment  of  the  heathen  aggressors  ;  finally, 
the  organisation  of  the  new  nation  in  such  a  way  as  to  guard 
against  the  errors  of  the  past.  The  whole  is  appropriately  pre- 
faced by  the  chapter  on  the  prophet  as  watchman  which  we  have 
already  considered,  and  by  a  warning  to  the  people  to  be  doers 
of  the  word  and  not  hearers  only.1 

Without  confining  ourselves  strictly  to  the  prophet's  own  order 
we  may  look  at  the  details  of  his  picture.  First  of  all  it  should  be 
noticed  that  he  expects  the  total  duration  of  the  exile  to  be  forty 
years.1  This  is,  of  course,  a  round  number  ;  but  he  probably 
expects  the  generation  that  follows  his  own  to  see  the  return. 

The  land  of  Judah  must  first  be  restored,  for  the  curse  of  Yah- 
weh  has  fallen  on  the  soil.  Hence  we  find  a  promise  that  the 
mountains  are  to  be  visited  and  that  new  fruitfulness  is  to  be  their 
portion  for  the  sake  of  Israel  and  for  the  sake  of  Yahweh's  name 
— for  the  nations  say:  "This  is  Yahweh's  people,  yet  they  had 
to  leave  His  land."  But  this  desolate  land  will  be  made  like 
the  garden  of  Eden.5 

More  than  fruitfulness  of  soil  is  necessary  for  the  happiness  of 
a  people.  This  had  been  proved  by  the  old  days,  both  in  Israel 
and  Judah.  "  Where  wealth  accumulates  and  men  decay  "  was 
the  standing  characterisation  of  Israel's  prosperity  on  the  part  of 
the  prophets.  A  just  government  is  necessary,  or  the  fairest  lands 
will  languish.  Ezekiel  is  quite  aware  of  this  and  sets  it  before  us 
in  a  chapter  devoted  to  the  shepherds  of  Israel.  The  shepherds 
should  care  for  the  flock — so  should  the  rulers  care  for  their  peo- 
ple. The  monarchy  is  in  its  very  idea  an  institution  that  de- 
fends the  weak  against  the  powerful.  Too  often  the  king  becomes 
a  new  oppressor,  taking  the  part  of  the  rapacious  noble  against 
the  oppressed  peasant.  Such  had  been  the  case  in  Judah,  as 

1  That  Ezekiel  was  nerved  for  greater  activity  by  the  news  of  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem  is  indicated  in  this  chapter — even  his  physical  debility  seems  to 
have  been  removed  (33  **).  That  his  prestige  was  increased  we  have  had 
occasion  to  note.  He  had,  however,  the  common  experience  of  preachers — 
in  the  willingness  of  his  hearers  to  be  entertained,  and  their  unwillingness  to 
practice  what  he  preached  (33SO~8S). 

*  The  prophet  lies  on  his  side  forty  days — a  day  for  a  year — to  bear  the 
sin  of  Judah  (4  '). 

1  Ezek.  36  »•  »» ;  cf.  also  34 «"». 


THE  EXILE  315 

Ezekiel  had  seen  exemplified  in  the  case  of  Jehoiakim.  The 
shepherds  had  fed  themselves  and  not  the  flock.  They  had  not 
defended  the  flock  from  enemies  without,  nor  had  they  kept  the 
peace  within  the  fold.  Among  sheep  as  among  men  the  strong 
crowd  the  weak  out  of  the  best  pasture,  keep  them  from  the 
water,  wantonly  foul  and  mar  what  was  intended  for  the  good  of 
all.  Such  a  king  as  Jehoiakim  must  be  made  impossible  in  the 
future.  Yahweh  will  make  such  a  king  impossible  by  Himself 
assuming  the  government  and  taking  the  part  of  the  oppressed. 
The  human  monarch  is  to  remain  (as  we  shall  see)  but  he  is  to 
be  shorn  of  his  power  to  oppress.1  The  new  David  is  to  be  not 
king  but  prince — a  title  which  Ezekiel  consistently  gives  him 
throughout  his  discussion. 

And  now  for  the  foreign  nations — how  much  heart-break  they 
had  occasioned  the  true  believers.  They  were  doing  Yahweh's 
will,  to  be  sure,  and  yet  they  were  moved  by  their  own  evil  pas- 
sions. Has  the  justice  of  Yahweh  nothing  to  do  with  them? 
Isaiah  has  already  answered  that  when  Yahweh  has  made  due  use 
of  Assyria  as  the  instrument  of  His  chastisement,  He  will  punish 
the  pride  of  its  stout  heart.  So  it  had  come  to  pass,  for  Assyria 
had  fallen  ;  but  the  new  scourge  had  been  as  godless  as  the  old. 
There  must  be  a  day  of  vengeance  for  him  also  and  for  all  who 
had  taken  part  in  the  spoliation  of  Judah.  This  we  must  suppose 
to  be  Ezekiel's  faith,  and  he  does  not  hesitate  to  express  it.  Cu- 
riously, he  nowhere  denounces  the  Babylonian  power.  Was  he 
afraid  of  the  police?  Or  did  he  think  it  unwise  to  arouse  hopes 
among  his  countrymen  that  might  lead  to  unrest  and  sedition  ? 
Or  was  he  impressed  with  the  good  order  and  prosperity  the  ex- 
iles were  enjoying  under  Nebuchadrezzar,  so  that  he  regarded  the 
magistrate  as  the  power  ordained  of  God  ?  We  ask  in  vain. 
What  stands  out  prominently  is  the  enmity  which  the  prophet 
feels  against  Edom.  This  can  readily  be  accounted  for  by  the 
fact  that  Edom  was  Judah's  nearest  neighbour,  rejoiced  most 
openly  over  her  fall,  and  hastened  to  invade  her  weakened  terri- 
tory. In  revenge  the  prophet  declares  that  Edom's  land  shall 
become  a  desert.' 

1  Chapter  34.  Yahweh  the  good  shepherd  is  a  common  figure  in  the  Old 
Testament.  Perhaps  the  earliest  passages  are  in  Jeremiah. 

1  Chapter  35  appropriately  forms  the  preface  to  the  promise  to  the  moun- 
tains of  Israel.  I  have  purposely  left  out  of  view  the  group  of  prophecies 


3l6  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

Instead  of  insisting  on  the  separate  punishment  of  the  various 
nations  which  have  been  hostile  to  Judah,  Ezekiel  rises  to  a 
grander  conception.  The  peace  of  Yahweh's  land  had  been  dis- 
turbed by  more  terrible  powers  than  Edom  or  Moab.  In  the  far 
north  was  a  reservoir  of  barbarians  whence  the  Scythian  armies 
had  poured  forth  to  desolate  the  face  of  the  civilised  earth.  Not 
until  they  had  been  taught  a  lesson  by  the  signal  judgment  of 
God  could  these  barbarian  hordes  be  expected  to  refrain  from 
further  attacks.  The  prophet  had  himself  in  his  boyhood  heard 
of  these  invaders  as  a  present  terror.  Yahweh's  name  would  be 
best  vindicated  by  a  new  irruption  visibly  checked  by  His  inter- 
vention. So  we  read  the  prophecy  of  Gog,  and  find  in  it  the 
summing  up  of  all  that  Yahweh  can  be  expected  to  do  against  all 
the  Gentiles.  Gog1  is  the  leader  of  the  heathen  powers,  espe- 
cially those  terrible  ones  in  the  north  and  east.2  He  is  the  in- 
carnation of  hostility  to  Israel.  His  army  is  held  in  reserve  for 
the  last  great  crisis  in  history.  When  the  time  comes  he  is  to 
be  led  forth  by  the  will  of  Yahweh  and  make  the  final  invasion 
of  Israel's  land  :  "After  many  days  thou  shall  receive  a  commis- 
sion ;  at  the  end  of  years  thou  shalt  come  against  a  land  recov- 
ered from  its  desolation,  against  those  gathered  from  many  na- 
tions who  dwell  in  security,  all  of  them.  Thou  shalt  come  up 
like  a  storm,  like  a  cloud  to  cover  the  land,  thou  and  all  thy 
hordes."  *  In  all  this — as  was  the  case  with  Assyria — the  invader 
is  moved  by  his  own  evil  desires.  He  sees  Israel  dwelling  in 
unwalled  villages  and  thinks  to  find  an  easy  prey.  But  the  peo- 
ple that  trust  in  Yahweh  shall  not  be  put  to  shame.  Their  de- 
liverance will  be  sure,  and  so  signal  that  none  can  misinterpret 
it.  By  a  great  earthquake  a  panic  will  be  brought  upon  the  in- 

against  the  foreign  nations  which  now  form  the  middle  section  of  the  book 
(chapters  25-32)  because  I  am  not  satisfied  that  in  their  present  form  they 
are  by  Ezekiel. 

1  Gog  and  Magog,  the  phrase  which  is  found  in  the  New  Testament  (Rev. 
2O  *)  and  which  has  passed  over  >nto  Christian  and  Mohammedan  tradition, 
is  due  to  a  misunderstanding. 

*  It  is  strange  to  find  Nubia  and  Libya  in  his  armies.  Probably  there  is 
some  corruption  of  the  text  which  originally  named  two  northern  or  eastern 
nations;  cf.  Toy  in  his  edition  of  the  text  (Haupt's  Sacred  Books  of  the  Old 
Testament). 

'  Ezek.  38  8.  That  the  hosts  of  Antichrist,  or  of  the  hostile  world-power, 
are  held  in  reserve  for  the  last  great  Day  is  a  common  feature  in  Christian 
and  Mohammedan  tradition. 


THE   EXILE  317 

vader.  As  in  the  Midianite  army  at  the  time  of  Gideon,  each 
man's  sword  will  be  against  his  fellow.  The  slaughter  will  be 
completed  by  pestilence,  and  by  a  hail  of  fire  and  brimstone 
from  heaven. 

The  first  advantage  of  this  programme  is  that  it  vindicates  the 
earlier  prophets.  Ezekiel  had  before  him  predictions  of  disaster 
on  the  enemies  of  Israel  which  had  not  been  fulfilled.  By  their 
non-fulfilment  the  name  of  Yahweh  had  suffered — as  though  He 
were  unable  to  carry  out  what  He  had  threatened.  Not  only 
will  this  reproach  be  removed  by  the  great  Day  that  is  to  come, 
but  Yahweh's  name  will  be  revered  over  the  earth:  "That  the 
nations  may  know  me,  in  that  by  thee  I  show  my  divinity  before 
their  eyes."1  His  power  and  His  care  for  His  people  will  be 
universally  recognised. 

We  must  not  leave  this  prophecy  without  noticing  one  char- 
acteristic of  Ezekiel  which  it  brings  into  great  prominence.  This 
is  his  carefulness  in  matters  of  detail,  and  especially  on  the  side 
of  ritual.  After  the  annihilation  of  the  hosts  of  Gog,  the  land  is 
covered  with  their  corpses.  These  are  repulsive  not  only  to  sense 
and  sight,  but  also  to  religion,  for  the  religion  of  Yahweh  stamps 
the  dead  as  unclean  ;  contact  with  them  unfits  a  man  for  worship. 
Special  pains  must  be  taken,  therefore,  to  remove  every  vestige 
of  the  great  slaughter.  Ravenous  birds  and  beasts  are  allowed  to 
act  as  scavengers.  But  it  is  ordained  that  when  these  have 
wrought  their  work,  a  great  valley  shall  be  chosen  on  the  other 
side  of  the  Jordan,  whither  shall  be  carried  all  that  remains.  This 
work  will  occupy  seven  months,  and,  in  order  that  it  may  be 
thorough,  inspectors  are  to  be  appointed  to  go  through  the  land, 
and  mark  every  bone  not  yet  disposed  of.  A  final  gleaning  will 
then  remove  every  trace  of  pollution.1 

The  practical  and  prosaic  sense  of  Ezekiel  in  the  midst  of  this 
grandiose  description  is  manifested  by  his  theory  of  the  captured 
arms  of  Gog  and  his  host.  These  arms  are  of  no  use  to  Israel 

1  "In  that  I  show  myself  holy  before  their  eyes  "  gives  a  wrong  impres- 
sion. Holiness  as  the  word  is  commonly  understood  is  a  moral  attribute. 
What  the  prophet  has  in  mind  is  rather  one  of  the  natural  attributes  (to 
speak  theologically) — the  superhuman  power  of  Yahweh.  For  this  reason 
I  translate  show  my  divinity  instead  of  sanctify  myself,  or  shoiv  myself  holy. 
Yahweh's  holiness  is  precisely  that  quality  which  makes  Him  different  from 
man,  His  divinity.  The  passage  is  38  u. 

»  Ezek.  39  «-». 


318  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTOR\ 

because  it  is  a  peaceful  nation.  Consisting  of  spears,  bows,  arrows, 
and  clubs,  these  weapons  will  furnish  Israel  with  fuel  for  the  space 
of  seven  years.  This  feature  of  the  prediction  is,  of  course,  not 
purely  economic.  The  length  of  time  taken  in  consuming  these 
weapons,  as  well  as  the  length  of  time  required  for  the  burial  of 
the  bodies,  is  designed  to  impress  the  reader  with  the  greatness  of 
the  catastrophe.  To  the  little  band  of  exiles  such  a  judgment 
upon  the  Gentiles  would  indeed  prove  the  greatness  of  their  God. 
In  fact,  the  hope  of  such  a  great  cataclysmic  interference  in  the 
history  of  the  world  has  sustained  oppressed  and  persecuted  be- 
lievers in  many  a  dark  hour  from  Ezekiel's  time  onward.  The 
last  judgment,  the  end  of  the  age,  the  battle  with  Antichrist,  the 
great  Day — this  is  a  conception  which  is  coming  to  the  front 
continually  in  Judaism,  Christianity,  and  Islam.  Its  definite  for- 
mulation we  owe  to  Ezekiel.1 

It  needs  no  demonstration  that  Ezekiel  in  all  this  is  thinking 
strictly  of  a  restored  Israel  on  earth.  His  imagination  does  not 
reach  to  a  new  heaven  and  a  new  earth,  still  less  to  a  spiritual 
heaven  of  everlasting  bliss.  This  needs  to  be  borne  in  mind  in 
considering  another  vision  of  his,  which  has  quite  as  powerfully 
influenced  later  theology — the  vision  of  dry  bones.  In  this  vision 
the  prophet  is  brought  into  a  valley  filled  with  human  bones  from 
which  the  flesh  has  long  since  disappeared.  He  is  made  the  herald 
of  the  divine  will,  and  as  he  pronounces  the  words  of  which  he  is 
the  organ,  bone  seeks  out  his  fellow-bone,  sinews  and  flesh  come 
upon  the  articulated  frames,  breath  comes  into  the  new-formed 
bodies,  and  instead  of  the  mass  of  fragments,  a  great  army  of  liv- 
ing men  stand  upon  their  feet.*  All  that  the  prophet  received 
by  this  vision,  and  all  that  he  intended  to  convey  to  his  contemp- 
oraries was  an  assurance  that  the  dead  nation  should  live.  Judah 
did  indeed  seem  dead  beyond  the  possibility  of  resurrection.  The 
exiles  avowed  in  so  many  words,  that  they  were  only  the  dry 
bones  of  a  once-living  organism,  that  their  hope  had  perished,  that 
their  ruin  was  a  present  fact.  The  promise  is  given  to  those  who 

1  The  Day  of  Yahweh  was  to  the  older  prophets  (as  we  have  seen)  a  day 
of  judgment  upon  Israel.  Ezekiel  revives  the  old  popular  view  that  it  wai 
a  visitation  upon  Israel's  enemies.  His  originality  is  seen  in  the  definiteness 
with  which  he  presents  his  picture.  In  its  earliest  form  the  conception  is 
mythological. 

1  Ezek.  37 1~10.  The  later  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  was  no 
doubt  mightily  helped  by  the  vividness  of  this  picture. 


THE   EXILE  319 

speak  and  feel  in  this  way.     The  word  is :   "I  will  bring  you  out 
of  your  graves  and  will  bring  you  to  the  land  of  Israel     . 
and  will  put  my  spirit  in  you  and  you  shall  live."    Such  a  work 
of  national  restoration  would  be  as  great  a  miracle  as  to  restore 
the  dry  bones  to  life. 

Ezekiel's  hope,  then,  expressed  itself  very  definitely  along  these 
lines:  there  is  to  be  a  restoration;  the  nation  will  revive;  it 
will  be  put  into  possession  of  Yahweh's  land;  the  land  itself  will 
be  renovated ;  by  a  signal  judgment  the  heathen  will  be  taught 
Yahweh's  power  and  will  respect  His  people's  peace  and  integrity. 
But  a  troublesome  question  still  remains  :  Can  the  Israel  of  the 
future  be  trusted  to  do  any  better  than  the  Israel  of  the  past  had 
done  ?  On  this  point  the  prophet  must  have  had  many  misgiv- 
ings. He  and  his  contemporaries  were  led  by  their  experiences 
totally  to  condemn  the  old  Israel.  He  does  not  hesitate  to  say 
that  the  bride  of  Yahweh  had  been  adulterous  from  her  youth. 
This  is  the  attitude  of  later  Judaism — which  here  again  shows  the 
strength  of  Ezekiel's  influence.  Suppose,  now,  that  the  nation  is 
restored  according  to  promise.  What  is  to  prevent  its  going 
astray  again  ?  Ezekiel  is  aware,  as  all  theologians  are  aware,  that 
the  natural  heart  cannot  be  trusted.  It  needs  the  special  grace 
of  God  if  it  is  to  be  kept  in  the  right  way.  The  assurance  that 
the  failure  of  the  past  will  not  be  repeated  in  the  future  must 
come  from  Yahweh  Himself.  And  so  at  the  forefront  of  his  re- 
newed Israel  the  prophet  puts  a  promise  of  gracious  influence  in 
the  heart  of  man:  "  I  will  give  you  a  new  heart,  and  will  put  a 
new  spirit  within  you  ;  I  will  take  away  the  heart  of  stone,  and 
will  give  you  a  heart  of  flesh  ;  I  will  put  my  spirit  within  you, 
and  will  cause  you  to  walk  in  my  statutes,  and  you  shall  keep  my 
judgments  and  do  them."1  Without  such  gracious  intervention 
the  history  of  the  past  would  repeat  itself. 

One  would  think  that  this  were  sufficient.  When  it  is  God 
that  works  in  us  to  will  and  to  do  of  His  good  pleasure  we  may 
be  trusted  to  work  out  our  own  salvation.  But  like  most  religious 

1  Ezek.  36  *•  • ;  cf.  1 1  '•.  I  suppose  the  similar  promises  in  Jeremiah  (24  T, 
3iM,  32**)  to  be  later  insertions  in  that  book  and  dependent  on  Ezekiel, 
rather  than  the  reverse.  The  complaint  of  the  prophets  concerning  the 
hardness  of  their  hearers'  hearts,  was  a  complaint  of  stupidity  of  brain,  and 
the  promise  must  be  interpreted  accordingly — the  people  will  become  quick 
to  apprehend  the  word  of  God. 


320  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

leaders,  Ezekiel  reasons  in  another  way.  The  spirit  may  be  will- 
ing but  the  flesh  is  weak.  Therefore  the  flesh  must  be  helped  by 
those  external  and  ceremonial  regulations  which  will  prevent  at 
least  external  violations  of  the  law.  There  must  be  organisation 
and  government — this  is  the  key  to  the  great  concluding  vision 
of  Ezekiel's  book.  And  this  government  must  be  ecclesiastical 
rather  than  civil — this  we  may  understand  from  the  prophet's 
antecedents  and  from  his  observation  of  civil  government. 

It  is  a  concession  to  tradition  that  there  is  to  be  a  monarch. 
But  the  monarch  is  to  be  shorn  of  most  of  his  power,  as  we  have 
already  seen.1  He  becomes,  in  fact,  the  nursing  father  of  the 
Church  and  even  that  only  to  a  limited  degree.  He  is  to  receive 
a  very  considerable  landed  property  in  the  new  division  of  the 
country.  This  is  to  secure  him  a  sufficient  income  so  that  he 
will  not  need  to  levy  taxes — the  oriental  feeling  always  has  been 
that  the  monarch  is  rich  enough  to  give  presents  rather  than  to 
exact  them.  The  prince,  as  he  is  consistently  called  by  Ezekiel, 
is  to  have  power  to  levy  one  small  and  strictly  limited  tax  and 
this  he  must  apply  to  the  support  of  the  daily  worship,  and  of  the 
festival  offerings.*  To  guard  against  his  intrusion  in  matters  of 
religion  he  is  treated  as  a  layman  and  not  even  allowed  to  enter 
the  sanctuary.  He  is  apparently  to  take  cognisance  of  civil 
affairs,  as  he  is  exhorted  to  see  that  a  uniform  standard  of  weight 
and  measure  is  enforced.  But  his  jurisdiction  is  not  supposed  to 
be  very  extensive  because  so  many  cases  are  reserved  for  the 
arbitration  of  the  priests. 

Furthermore,  we  have  to  note  that  the  new  commonwealth  is 
simply  an  adjunct  to  the  restored  Temple  of  Yahweh.  To  pre- 
vent the  old  tribal  jealousies,  the  land  is  to  be  divided  anew 
among  the  twelve  tribes.  All  Israel  is  to  be  located  in  Canaan 
proper,  between  the  Jordan  and  the  sea.  The  exposure  of  the 
transjordanic  country  to  contamination  from  the  desert  is,  per- 
haps, the  reason  for  this.  The  increased  fruitfulness  of  the  land 
will  compensate  for  the  restricted  area.  Each  tribe  is  to  have  a 

1  In  34  M  '  we  find  a  promise  that  a  new  David  shall  rule  over  the  reunited 
Israel.  I  doubt,  however,  whether  this  is  Ezekiel's  own  declaration. 
Some  similar  Messianic  sections  in  the  early  part  of  the  book  seem  also  to 
be  later  insertions. 

*  An  income-tax  in  kind — one-sixtieth  part  of  the  grain  crop,  one  per  cent. 
of  the  oil  and  one-half  per  cent,  of  the  cattle — is  assessed  by  the  prince,  and 
from  this  he  is  to  furnish  the  various  offerings,  45  I8"nf  and  46 18"14. 


THE  EXILE  321 

strip  across  the  country.  Judah  and  Benjamin  are  to  exchange 
places  in  order  the  better  to  obliterate  the  old  lines  of  division. 
Between  these  two  important  tribes  will  be  the  Temple. 

The  expectation  of  Yahweh's  interference  for  His  people  is 
carried  so  far  as  to  include  the  physical  transformation  of  the 
country.  The  new  Temple  will  be  located  on  an  exceeding  high 
mountain.  Here  Ezekiel  sees  it  in  vision,  and  so  changed  is  the 
topography  that  he  does  not  at  first  recognise  the  building.1  The 
great  structure  will  form  a  unit  of  itself,  isolated  from  the  city  of 
which  it  has  been  heretofore  a  part.  Immediately  about  the 
sanctuary  the  priests  will  receive  their  allotments  of  ground,  the 
more  effectually  to  separate  city  and  Temple. 

The  elaborate  measurements  of  the  new  sanctuary  need  not 
be  reproduced  here.  The  central  building  is  to  be  on  the  plan 
of  the  old  one  which  had  been  destroyed.  Instead  of  the  single 
court  in  which  that  one  originally  stood,  this  will  have  two,  an 
outer  and  an  inner.  Entrance  to  the  inner  is  prohibited  to  any 
but  the  priests  and  Levites.  Even  the  prince  is  allowed  to  come 
only  into  the  gateway  to  see  his  sacrifices  offered.  A  wall  ten  feet 
high  and  ten  feet  thick  surrounds  the  whole  structure,  and  one 
of  similar  massiveness  separates  the  outer  from  the  inner  court. 
Each  Ls  provided  with  gateways,  and  each  gateway  is  arranged  to 
accommodate  a  considerable  guard. 

What  is  the  reason  for  all  this  elaborate  fortification  and  regu- 
lation? The  reason  is  given  by  the  writer.  In  the  old  days 
Yahweh  had  been  constantly  offended  by  trespassers  on  His  holi- 
ness. We  have  already  had  occasion  to  notice  that  this  word 
was  used  to  denote  a  physical,  rather  than  a  moral  attribute  of 
the  divinity.  To  understand  the  attitude  of  Ezekiel  and  his 
contemporaries  we  need  to  remember  that  all  things  could  be 
divided  into  the  two  classes,  sacred  and  profane.  One  class  (the 
sacred  or  holy,  as  we  have  the  word  rendered  in  our  translations) 
was  fit  for  the  worship  of  Yahweh,  either  naturally  or  because  it 
had  been  consecrated  to  Him.  The  other  class  was  not  fit  to  be 
brought  before  Him  and  was  likely  to  arouse  His  wrath.  The 
danger  of  offending  Him  was  reason  for  the  utmost  caution  in 

1  The  great  vision — chapters  40-48 — begins  with  this  statement.  Other 
Old  Testament  passages  which  speak  of  the  Mount  of  the  House  being  lifted 
above  the  mountains  (Is.  2f  and  the  parallel  in  Micah)  ore  probably  de- 
pendent on  Ezekiel. 


322  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

approaching  His  presence.  The  danger  was  greatest  when  it  was 
a  question  between  Him  and  another  god.  Of  old  He  was 
known  to  be  a  jealous  God  who  could  brook  no  rivals.  What 
was  dedicated  to  another  deity  was  therefore  especially  abhorrent 
to  Him. 

Now  almost  everything  which  is  not  dedicated  to  Yahweh  is 
liable  to  fall  under  the  power  of  another  god.  To  the  average 
man  of  ancient  times  the  world  was  full  of  gods  (demons,  cobolds, 
jinn,  are  only  gods  of  the  second  class).  Even  so  late  a  writer 
as  Augustine  is  able  to  show  that  every  act  and  exigency  of  life 
was  brought  into  relation  with  some  god.1  What  was  true  of 
the  Roman  world  was  even  more  true  in  the  distant  East  a  thou- 
sand years  earlier.  Ezekiel,  like  all  who  took  the  will  of  Yah- 
weh seriously,  was  weighed  down  by  the  thought  of  how  easy  it 
was  to  infringe  the  holiness  of  Yahweh.  Prominent  among  the 
duties  of  the  priests,  therefore,  is  the  instruction  of  the  people 
concerning  the  distinction  between  things  sacred  and  profane. 

Even  moral  offences — and  we  have  seen  that  Ezekiel  set  up  a 
high  moral  standard — were  viewed  in  the  same  light  as  offences 
against  the  holiness  of  Yahweh.  Violations  of  the  will  of  Yahweh 
were  all  in  the  same  category.  Where  we  distinguish  between 
moral  and  ceremonial  requirements,  Ezekiel  made  no  difference. 
These  requirements  were  partly  recorded  in  the  Book  of  In- 
struction ;  but  they  were  also  in  part  a  matter  of  priestly  tra- 
dition. 

As  an  example  of  what  is  meant,  we  may  cite  the  prophet's 
specification  concerning  the  burial  of  the  kings  of  Judah.  The 
Temple  of  Solomon  was  in  immediate  connexion  with  the  palace. 
In  accordance  with  ancient  custom  the  bodies  of  the  kings  of 
Judah  were  buried  in  the  palace — in  the  part  of  the  palace  ad- 
joining the  Temple.  So  we  are  told  explicitly  by  Ezekiel  him- 
self.1 After  what  was  said  above  about  the  pollution  of  corpses, 
we  understand  fully  the  offence  which  was  given  by  this  custom. 
We  may  go  further  and  say  that  even  to  a  late  day  the  manes 
were  worshipped  in  Judah,  and  so  the  burial  of  the  kings  near 
the  Temple  brought  alien  divinities  into  the  very  presence  of 
Yahweh.  It  is  considerations  such  as  these  which  induce  Ezekiel 

1  De  Civitate  Dei,  IV,  8-u. 

J  Erek.  43 ' f.  On  the  taboo  communicated  by  dead  bodies,  cf.  Frazer,  The 
Golden  Bough,  I,  p  169  f. 


THE  EXILE  323 

to  remove  the  Temple  from  the  city,  or,  better,  to  remove  the 
city  from  the  Temple,  and  to  put  between  them  the  consecrated 
persons,  the  priests. 

New  regulations  are  published  for  the  priests  themselves,  based 
on  the  same  reflection — possibly  also  to  some  extent  on  tradition. 
The  priests  are  greatly  limited  in  their  mourning  customs.  It  was 
impossible  wholly  to  do  away  with  expressions  of  grief  which  had 
become  established  in  usage,  even  though  they  were  animistic  in 
origin,  but  what  could  be  done,  Ezekiel  enjoined.  In  like  manner 
he  gave  new  regulations  concerning  the  dress  of  the  priests.  More 
important,  and  indeed  revolutionary,  was  the  new  stipulation  con- 
cerning the  personnel  of  the  Temple  service.  It  had  been  the  cus- 
tom of  the  kings  of  Judah — so  we  discover  from  the  passage  under 
consideration ' — to  make  presents  of  slaves  to  the  Temple.  These 
were  captives  taken  in  war,  we  may  suppose,  uncircumcised  in 
heart  and  uncircumcised  in  flesh  as  Ezekiel  calls  them:  that  is, 
being  foreigners,  they  had  no  interest  in  the  service  to  which 
they  were  bound,  and  they  also  lacked  in  their  flesh  the  sign 
which  should  show  their  consecration  to  Yahweh.  Their  presence 
in  the  Temple  must  be  an  offence  to  Yahweh  and  such  an  abuse 
must  be  guarded  against  in  the  future.  Hence  the  service  of  the 
Temple,  even  in  its  most  menial  parts,  must  be  in  the  hands  of 
duly  consecrated  ministers.  None  but  these  were  to  enter  the 
inner  court. 

The  priests,  however,  were  historically  of  two  classes.  The 
services  of  the  Temple  had  been  carried  on  since  the  time  of  Solo- 
mon by  the  family  of  Zadok.  They  were  regarded  as  belonging  to 
the  general  class  of  Levites,  by  which  name  the  ministers  of  all  the 
Yahweh  sanctuaries  were  known.  The  writer  of  Deuteronomy 
knew  no  difference  between  priests  and  Levites.  In  its  command 
to  abolish  the  High-places,  this  book  does  not  mean  to  have  the 
ministers  of  these  sanctuaries  deprived  of  their  rights  as  priests  of 
Yahweh.  It  specifically  ordains  that  they  shall  become  part  of 
the  ministry  of  the  Temple.*  But  it  was  hardly  to  be  expected 
that  the  house  of  Zadok,  already  in  possession,  would  surrender 

1  Ezek.  44*"1*.  Ezekiel  does  not  say  in  so  many  words  that  these  foreigners 
were  presented  by  the  kings,  but  other  passages  state  or  imply  it  (Ezra  8"). 

1  Dent.  1 8  '-*,  where  all  members  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  are  regarded  as  hav- 
ing the  same  rights  and  privileges.     We  had  occasion  to  notice  this 
in  discussing  the  reform  of  Josiah, 


324  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

their  prerogatives.  Under  pressure  from  Josiah  the  new-comers 
were  enrolled  in  the  Temple  staff,  but  equality  with  the  Zadokites 
could  not  be  carried  through. 

Ezekiel  is  fully  aware  of  the  history  of  the  case.  As  himself  a 
member  of  the  family  of  Zadok,  he  has  no  desire  to  reduce  the 
privileges  of  that  family.  He  therefore  sanctions  the  status  quo 
by  a  specific  enactment.  And  this  he  motives  by  a  religious 
theory.  The  Levites  (he  thinks),  though  true  priests  of  Yahweh, 
have  been  guilty  of  defection  from  His  worship  in  that  they  served 
the  High-places.  Their  reduction  to  the  lower  class  of  ministers 
is  a  punishment  for  this  defection.  In  this  way  what  had  actually 
taken  place  is  theoretically  justified.  And  the  gain  of  thus  regu- 
lating the  service  of  the  sanctuary  is  great.  The  uncircumcised 
Temple  slaves  may  now  be  abolished.  The  whole  of  the  sacred 
service  will  come  into  the  hands  of  consecrated  persons.  There 
will  be  no  violation  of  the  holiness  of  Yahweh,  the  work  of  the 
sanctuary  will  be  better  done,  and  the  needy  Levites  will  be  pro- 
vided for.  The  tendency  to  give  a  special  consecration  to  those 
who  perform  even  menial  offices  in  sacred  places  is  noticeable  in 
other  religions  as  well  as  in  Judaism.  Attention  should  be 
called  in  this  connexion  to  the  fact  that  Ezekiel,  familiar  as  he 
is  with  priestly  ideals  and  priestly  tradition,  nowhere  mentions 
Aaron  as  in  any  way  the  ancestor  or  founder  of  the  priestly 
family. 

The  millennium  of  Ezekiel's  dreams,  therefore,  was  a  church- 
state  whose  constitutive  fact  was  the  dwelling  of  Yahweh  in  the 
midst  of  His  people.  In  order  to  attain  this  all  these  precautions 
were  necessary — the  priests  to  offer  sacrifice,  the  Levites  to  guard 
the  doors  and  care  for  the  house,  the  prince  to  supply  the  offer- 
ings, the  people  to  worship  at  a  distance.  The  main  business 
of  this  church  was  to  keep  itself  unspotted  from  the  world.  This 
means  no  doubt  to  avoid  sin,  for  transgression  of  the  will  of  Yah- 
weh, whether  in  morals  or  in  ritual,  is  violation  of  His  holiness. 
But  all  is  looked  upon  from  the  ritual  rather  than  the  ethical  point 
of  view. 

It  would  seem  as  if  all  these  precautions,  with  the  help  of  the 
people's  renewed  heart,  would  be  enough.  Not  so  thought  the 
prophet.  In  a  world  where  so  much  must  be  classed  as  profane 
the  possibilities  of  defilement  are  constantly  present.  Special  rites 
of  purification  must  therefore  be  observed  at  stated  times.  One 


THE   EXILE  325 

can  hardly  be  too  scrupulous,  for  an  unwitting  violation  of  the 
rules  for  holiness  may  bring  down  the  wrath  of  Yahweh.  With 
the  best  will  in  the  world  one  may  come  into  contact  with  that 
which  is  ritually  defiling.  Even  the  priest  is  not  exempt  from 
such  contagion.  The  sanctuary  itself  or  its  vessels  may  be  affected 
by  it.  To  prevent  so  disastrous  a  state  of  things,  a  special  class 
of  offerings  is  now  brought  into  prominence.  These  are  the  so- 
called  sin  offerings,  which  have  special  efficacy  in  removing  cere- 
monial defilement. 

These  offerings  are  found  in  early  Semitic  religion,  where  they 
are  expiatory  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word.  When  the  god  is 
angry  and  blood  alone  will  satisfy  him,  a  victim  is  brought  and 
slain  at  his  altar.  His  anger  being  cooled,  the  old  relations  are 
resumed  between  him  and  his  worshippers.  In  Israelitish  relig- 
ion we  may  suppose  such  offerings  not  unknown,  though  they 
were  always  rare.  The  fact  which  had  early  impressed  itself  on 
the  memory  of  the  people  was  that  the  blood  of  a  victim  restores 
the  lost  communion  with  Yahweh.  Exactly  how  it  does  this  was 
not  reflected  upon.  The  calamities  of  Judah  made  it  necessary  that 
the  people  should  reflect  on  the  means  to  be  taken  to  recover  the 
favour  of  Yahweh.  The  means  were  at  hand  in  the  ancient  sin 
offering,  which  Ezekiel  therefore  makes  prominent.  Every  six 
months  (he  ordains)  the  consecration  of  the  sanctuary  is  to  be 
renewed  by  a  special  sin  offering.1  In  this  way  the  continued 
presence  of  Yahweh  will  be  assured.  In  the  prominence  which 
Ezekiel  gives  to  this  class  of  offerings  he  is  again  the  forerunner 
of  Judaism. 

To  complete  our  discussion  of  Ezekiel's  commonwealth  we  need 
to  notice  the  river  which  he  sees  issuing  from  the  sanctuary. 
This  river,  which  was  suggested  to  him  by  the  fountain  which 
flows  at  the  base  of  the  actual  Temple  hill,  is  to  run  down  the 
great  gorge  of  the  Kedron  and  into  the  Dead  Sea.  So  abundant 
will  be  its  supply  that  it  will  transform  this  lifeless  body  of  water 
into  a  fresh- water  lake  whose  waters  will  swarm  with  fish  and 
whose  shores  will  cease  to  be  desert.  Ezekiel  had  no  mystical 
or  allegorical  meaning  hidden  behind  this  vision.  It  was  to  him 
only  a  part  of  the  programme  for  increasing  fertility  in  the  prom- 
ised land.  The  Dead  Sea  and  the  wilderness  of  Judah  were  to  be 
made  to  do  their  part  in  sustaining  the  people.  So  distinctly 
1  Erek.  45  "-*>. 


326  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

prosaic  and  economic  is  he  that  he  allows  the  salt  marshes  to  re 
main  in  order  that  the  people  may  be  supplied  with  salt.1 

From  our  point  of  view  the  limitations  of  Ezekiel  are  so  obvi- 
ous that  it  is  easy  for  us  to  underrate  him.  We  see  in  him  a 
man  intense  but  narrow ;  his  ideals  are  formal,  liturgical ;  his 
dogmatism  leads  him  to  shut  his  eyes  to  the  facts  of  experience. 
But  with  all  this  we  can  see  not  only  that  he  was  the  man  for  the 
time,  but  that  his  power  came  from  his  sterling  moral  qualities. 
He  was  intensely  in  earnest ;  he  was  saturated  with  the  idea  of  his 
own  and  his  people's  responsibility;  he  was  faithful  to  duty  when 
all  the  world  (his  world)  was  against  him.  When  the  tide  turned 
and  his  predictions  were  justified  by  the  event,  he  showed  noth- 
ing of  pride  or  vainglory.  If  he  was  pessimistic  when  others 
were  hopeful,  he  showed  most  hope  when  they  were  hopeless. 
No  sooner  did  the  calamity  fall  than  he  began  the  work  of  up- 
building. And  this  he  did  with  a  sincere  love  for  souls,  watch- 
ing for  them  as  one  that  should  give  account.  The  system 
which  he  evolved  was  no  doubt  narrow  and  exclusive.  But  we 
see  no  way  in  which  Judaism  could  have  been  carried  through 
its  crisis,  no  way  in  which  it  could  have  been  preserved  for  its 
future  mission,  except  by  becoming  for  the  time  being  narrow 
and  exclusive.  The  framework  provided  by  Ezekiel  in  his  vis- 
ion became  an  ideal  toward  which  his  countrymen  could  work. 
And  as  they  began  to  realise  it,  even  in  their  exile,  it  gave  them 
coherence  and  staying  power.  Ezekiel  was  the  father  of  Juda- 
ism. The  child  was  tempted,  when  it  got  its  growth,  to  disown 
the  relationship.  But  we  are  able  to  see  to  whom  it  owes  its 
being.  To  say  that  he  is  the  father  of  Judaism  means  that  he  is 
the  father  of  legalism.  The  prophets  in  general  may  be  said  to 
have  prepared  the  way  for  the  great  casuistic  system,  by  which 
the  Jews  have  lived  so  many  centuries.  They  were  constantly 
preaching  obedience  as  the  condition  of  life.  But  this  preach- 
ing crystallised  in  Ezekiel.  He  (following  in  the  footsteps  of 
Deuteronomy)  laid  down  a  system  of  duties,  religious  as  well  as 

1  Ezek.  47  l~lt.  How  far  Ezekiel  expected  his  vision  to  be  literally  ful- 
filled is  a  point  on  which  the  interpreters  are  divided.  All  the  indications 
seem  to  me  to  show  that  he  supposed  it  would  be  literally  fulfilled.  As  to 
the  details  of  the  interpretation  the  reader  may  consult  the  recent  commen- 
taries, and  especially  Stade,  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  II,  where  maps 
and  plans  are  given. 


THE   EXILE  327 

moral,  by  which  the  people  might  hope  to  live  in  the  continued 
enjoyment  of  the  divine  favour.  And  as  he  raised  legalism  to  a 
system,  so  he  inaugurated  the  apocalyptic  school  of  thought 
which  has  so  powerfully  influenced  Judaism,  Christianity,  and 
Islam.  His  vision  of  the  future  was  one  that  could  never  be 
realised,  but  it  gave  an  outline  of  that  good  time  coming  which 
oppressed  souls  are  always  looking  for,  an  outline  which  they 
were  able  to  fill  in,  allegorise,  or  spiritualise,  as  met  the  need  of 
their  times.  Taking  him  all  in  all  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that 
Ezekiel  is  the  most  influential  man  that  we  find  in  the  whole 
course  of  Hebrew  history. 

Ezekiel's  latest  prophecy  is  dated  in  the  year  571  B.C.,  and  we 
may  suppose  that  his  death  occurred  not  long  after.  He  had 
taken  pains  to  put  some  part  of  his  life's  work  into  written  form, 
and  he  had  founded  a  school  whose  influence  extended  and  car- 
ried on  what  he  had  begun.  Through  all  these  years  the  Juda- 
ites  seem  to  have  had  peace  under  the  reign  of  Nebuchadrezzar. 
This  monarch  had  devoted  himself  to  the  adornment  of  his  capi- 
tal, planning  and  carrying  out  the  great  works  which  made 
Babylon  a  wonder  of  the  world.  His  own  inscriptions  tell  of 
the  number  and  magnificence  of  the  palaces  and  temples  which 
he  built,  and  of  his  rebuilding  those  city  walls  of  which  Greek 
writers  have  so  much  to  say.1  More  important  for  the  prosperity 
of  the  country  were  the  moats  and  canals  which  protected  the 
fields  from  inundation,  or  carried  the  water  to  them  when  needed. 
On  the  death  of  Nebuchadrezzar  his  son  Evil-merodach '  came  to 
the  throne.  He  it  was  who  released  Jehoiachin  from  his  long 
imprisonment,  and  gave  him  a  place  at  court.  We  hear  noth- 
ing of  the  effect  which  this  release  had  on  the  Jews  in  Babylonia. 
It  can  scarcely  be  supposed  that  the  Babylonian  monarchs  gave 
much  thought  to  the  little  band  of  exiles.  They,  on  their  part, 
were  probably  content  to  escape  observation.  They  were  learn- 
ing to  live  among  the  Gentiles,  as  in  the  great  world  and  yet  not 
of  it — a  lesson  that  was  to  prove  useful  to  them  for  a  long  time 

1  The  inscriptions  are  contained  in  the  Keilinschriftliche  Bibliothek,  III,  2, 
pp.  10-71.  A  good  estimate  of  Nebuchadrezzar's  character  as  a  man  and 
ruler  is  given  by  McCurdy,  History,  Prophtcy,  and  the  Monuments,  III,  pp. 

143-159- 

1  Amel-marduk  is  the  Babylonian  form  of  the  nama.  The  Biblical  writer 
(2  Kings,  25  "-*1)  dates  the  restoration  of  Jehoiachin  in  the  thirty-seventh  year 
of  his  captivity. 


328  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

to  come.  The  reign  of  Evil-merodach  has  nothing  to  claim  our 
attention.  He  seems  to  have  been  a  careless,  ease-loving  prince. 
After  a  reign  of  less  than  two  years  he  was  murdered  by  his 
brother-in-law,  Neriglissar,  who  seized  the  throne.  This  king 
retained  his  ill-gotten  power  only  three  years,  and  his  son,  who 
succeeded  him,  was  removed  by  a  conspiracy  soon  after  ascend- 
ing the  throne.  Nabonidus,  on  whom  the  conspirators  conferred 
the  crown,  reigned  about  twenty  years,  but  they  were  years  of 
loss  and  disintegration,  during  which  a  new  and  formidable 
power  not  far  away  was  threatening  Babylon. 

The  exiles  in  whom  our  interest  is  centred  had,  we  may  sup- 
pose, little  appreciation  of  the  civilisation  by  which  they  were 
surrounded.  It  was  to  them  the  expression  of  a  religion  foreign 
to  their  own,  and  in  their  eyes  many  of  its  customs  must  have 
been  abominations.  The  defection  of  some  of  their  number  to 
this  heathenism  would  make  the  remainder  only  more  rigid  in 
strengthening  the  institutions  which  still  remained  to  them.  They 
were  deprived  of  many  of  the  means  of  grace  ;  there  was  all  the 
more  reason  for  holding  on  to  what  was  left.  Sacrifice  could  not 
be  offered  in  a  strange  land.  Even  if  the  Temple  had  been  stand- 
ing, they  could  not  have  visited  it.  But  some  of  the  ordinances 
of  Yahweh  were  still  practicable.  Two  among  these,  because 
they  were  practicable,  and  because  they  served  to  emphasise  the 
difference  between  Jews  and  Gentiles,  received  new  importance. 
These  were  circumcision  and  the  Sabbath.  Observance  of  them 
now  became  a  test  of  fidelity  to  Yahweh. 

Circumcision  was  a  rite  originally  common  to  a  large  part  of 
the  inhabitants  of  Canaan,  with  the  Egyptians  and  other  African 
peoples.  Its  original  significance  is  now  lost  to  us,  but  there  is 
no  reason  to  doubt  that  this  significance  was  religious.  Wher- 
ever we  can  trace  the  origin  of  other  mutilations  of  the  body — 
tattooings,  cuttings,  extraction  of  teeth — we  find  them  based  on 
religious  ideas.  It  is  probable  that  with  the  Israelites  circum- 
cision was  a  tribal  mark,  admitting  boys  or  young  men  to  full 
membership  in  the  clan,  and  into  communion  with  Yahweh.  As 
we  have  seen '  the  Yahwist  found  a  tradition  that  Moses  provoked 
the  wrath  of  Yahweh  by  neglecting  it  and  that  its  performance 
upon  his  infant  son  was  the  means  of  reconciliation.  This  is  in 
accordance  with  the  early  ritualistic  view  such  as  we  see  illus- 
1  Above,  p.  66  f. 


THE   EXILE  329 

trated  by  the  Yahwist  elsewhere.  The  Elohist  has  a  variant  tra- 
dition. According  to  him  the  rite  was  introduced  by  Joshua  at 
Gilgal  to  remove  the  reproach  of  Egypt.1  With  him,  as  with 
the  Yahwist,  therefore,  it  is  a  part  of  the  popular  religion.  In 
the  eyes  of  the  prophets  the  rite  had  no  special  value.  It  is  not 
mentioned  by  Amos,  Hosea,  or  Isaiah,  while  Jeremiah  indicates 
his  light  esteem  for  it  as  a  mere  fleshly  ordinance.  At  the  same 
time  this  prophet  exhorts  the  people  to  circumcise  themselves  to 
Yahweh,  by  putting  away  the  foreskins  of  their  hearts.1  The 
language  will  be  natural  if  we  suppose  the  rite  to  be  a  rite  of  con- 
secration. Similar  expressions  in  Deuteronomy*  certainly  do 
not  favour  the  idea  that  the  external  rite  had  any  value  in  the 
author's  eyes. 

Ezekiel,  indeed,  made  no  direct  regulation  on  the  subject. 
But  he  introduced  a  different  valuation  of  external  rites.  The 
whole  system  of  clean  and  unclean  was,  in  his  eyes,  of  great  im- 
portance. He  takes  occasion  to  express  Yahweh's  abhorrence  of 
the  uncircumcised  foreigners  who  had  been  employed  in  His  ser- 
vice. We  may  be  sure,  therefore,  that  his  influence  would  be  in 
favour  of  the  retention  of  the  rite — all  the  more  that  Israel  was 
now  living  in  the  midst  of  the  uncircumcised.  In  several  pas- 
sages he  expresses  his  contempt  for  the  uncircumcised.*  Where 
such  reproach  was  uttered,  men  would  take  pains  to  avoid  giving 
occasion  for  it.  The  Judaite  who  neglected  the  rite  would  soon 
find  himself  regarded  with  scorn  by  his  fellows.  This  is  the  ten- 
dency that  made  itself  felt  in  the  exile,  and  which  has  wrought 
in  Judaism  to  the  present  time. 

The  other  mark  of  distinction  was  the  observance  of  the  Sab- 
bath. This  seems  to  have  been  originally  a  Babylonian  institu- 
tion, naturalised  in  Canaan  at  an  early  day.  Cessation  of  labour 
one  day  in  seven  cannot  be  the  thought  of  a  nomadic  or  pas- 
toral people.  The  life  of  the  peasant  is  the  one  which  gives  op- 
portunity for  such  an  observance.  That  certain  days  are  taboo, 
because  of  the  predominance  of  a  hostile  planet,  is  a  thought  that 
comes  with  the  systematic  observation  of  the  heavens  such  as  we 

1  Josh.  5  *•  '•  '•  *.     The  intervening  verses  are   a  later  insertion. 
1  Jer.  4  *.     In  9  M  Jeremiah  designates  the  circumcised  in  flesh  as  precisely 
the  ones  that  are  uncircumcised  in  heart 

1  Deut.  10  ",  30  * ;   the  latter  is  certainly  a  late  insertion. 
•Ezek.  28'°,  31  ",  32  >»."*». 


330  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

find  in  Babylonia.  The  Babylonians  are  said  to  have  designated 
the  seventh,  fourteenth,  twenty-first,  and  twenty-eighth  day  of 
each  month  as  days  of  possible  ill-omen,  in  which  special  care 
should  be  taken  concerning  what  one  does  or  undertakes.  The 
phases  of  the  moon  would  seem  to  give  reason  for  a  notion  of 
this  kind,  especially  where  the  moon  was  a  prominent  divinity, 
as  it  seems  to  have  been  all  over  the  East.  The  Old  Testament 
mention  of  New  Moon  and  Sabbath  in  conjunction  would  indicate 
a  common  origin  for  the  two  festivals.  With  this  idea  we  have 
another.  The  Book  of  the  Covenant  ordains  that  the  land  shall 
be  cultivated  six  years,  and  lie  fallow  the  seventh.  And  it  treats 
the  Sabbath  in  connexion  with  this  Sabbatic  year.1  Here  we  find 
the  idea  of  the  agriculturist  that  the  land  belongs  to  his  god,  and 
that  cultivation  is  a  trespass  on  the  god's  rights.  It  was  on  ac- 
count of  this  belief  that  so  much  care  was  taken  to  propitiate  the 
local  divinity  when  new  ground  was  brought  under  cultivation. 
Leaving  the  ground  fallow  for  a  portion  of  the  time  is  one  way 
of  recognising  the  god's  ownership. 

We  are  here  in  the  region  of  hypothesis.  But  as  we  know  that 
the  attributes  of  Baal  were  transferred  to  Yahweh,  and  that  Yah- 
weh  was  the  recognised  owner  of  the  land  of  Canaan,  it  does  not 
seem  far-fetched  to  suppose  that  at  least  the  Sabbatic  year  was  an 
acknowledgment  of  His  rights  in  the  soil,  and  that  the  Sabbath, 
whatever  its  original  connexion  with  the  moon-god,  was  regarded 
from  the  same  point  of  view.  In  the  earlier  prophets  we  find  no 
emphasis  laid  upon  the  sacred  day.  Amos  describes  the  extor- 
tionate merchants  as  observing  it,  but  with  the  wish  that  it  might 
pass  quickly  that  they  might  resume  their  money -getting.  Hosea 
mentions  it  as  one  of  the  joyous  festivals  which  are  to  come  to 
an  end.  Isaiah  puts  it  with  the  New  Moon  and  the  days  of  as- 
sembly, but  finds  them  all  an  abomination  to  Yahweh.1 

Ezekiel  takes  a  different  tone — here  again  the  inaugurator  of 
a  new  mode  of  thought.  Through  him  Yahweh  says :  "I  gave 
them  my  statutes  and  taught  them  my  judgments  in  which  a 
man  shall  live  if  he  do  them ;  and  also  my  Sabbaths  I  gave  them 
to  be  a  sign  between  myself  and  them,  that  they  might  know  that 
I,  Yahweh,  am  the  one  who  consecrates  them."  *  The  meaning 

1  Ex.  23  "-». 

•  Isaiah,  I  ",  Amos  8»,  Hos.  2". 

•Ezek.  20  nr,  and  several  times  in  the  same  chapter;  cf.  also  22 8-  *,  23 M. 


THE   EXILE  331 

seems  to  be  that  Yahweh  has  separated  Israel  from  the  nations, 
and  consecrated  them  to  Himself  by  putting  this  mark  upon  them. 
The  profanation  of  the  Sabbath  is  sacrilege — like  the  profanation 
of  other  sacred  things.  A  people  in  earnest  in  carrying  out  the 
idea  of  consecration  would  find  strong  motives  impelling  them  to 
the  observance  of  the  sacred  day.  We  are  not  surprised  that 
passages  originating  in  or  after  the  exile  lay  great  stress  upon  the 
day.  One  of  the  editors  of  Jeremiah  intimates  that  the  calamities 
of  the  house  of  David  might  have  been  avoided  had  the  princes 
been  careful  in  the  matter  of  the  Sabbath.1  Other  passages 
originating  in  or  after  the  exile  exhort  to  strict  observance  of  the 
day,  and  the  climax  is  reached  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah  or  later, 
when  desecration  was  punished  by  the  civil  authorities.* 

Whatever  we  may  think  of  the  ideals  cherished  by  Ezekiel, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he  gave  direction  to  the  thoughts  of 
his  people.  The  little  band  of  exiles  went  to  school  to  him,  and 
he  left  behind  pupils  who  could  carry  on  his  work.  Like  their 
master,  these  men  drew  a  sharp  line  through  the  habits  and 
customs  of  daily  life.  On  one  side,  whatever  by  priestly  or  pro- 
phetic tradition  was  connected  with  the  worship  of  Yahweh  was 
adopted  and  cherished.  On  the  other  side,  whatever  was  not 
thus  approved  was  unsparingly  condemned.  The  more  thought- 
ful of  the  exiles  could  not  help  following  their  master  in  extend- 
ing the  line  of  demarcation  into  the  past.  What  was  now  hateful 
to  Yahweh  must  always  have  been  hateful  to  Him.  And  in  ap- 
plying this  standard  it  must  be  evident  that  only  one  verdict 
could  be  pronounced.  The  fathers  came  short  in  almost  every 
particular. 

But  it  might  be  edifying,  nevertheless,  to  consider  these  short- 
comings of  earlier  generations.  So  a  new  impulse  was  given  to 
literature.  The  records  that  had  been  preserved  were  examined 

!jer.  I71MT.  The  paragraph  seems  not  to  come  from  Jeremiah  himself. 
It  is  contrary  to  his  whole  preaching.  The  most  striking  passage  on  the  ob- 
servance of  the  Sabbath  is  Isaiah,  5&1-7,  post-exilic,  as  we  shall  see.  From 
the  early  historical  books  we  learn  only  that  New  Moons  and  Sabbaths  were 
days  for  visiting  the  prophets,  and  that  the  Temple  guard  was  changed  on 
that  day  (2  Kings,  4**,  II  "). 

1  Neh.  13'*"**.  On  the  Babylonian  origin  of  the  Sabbath,  see  Jastrow'f 
article  in  the  American  Journal  of  Theology,  II,  pp.  312  ff.  (April,  1898), 
and  the  article  "  Sabbath  "  by  Driver  in  Hastings's,  Dictionary  of  tkt  Biblt, 
IV;  Toy  in  the  Journal  of  Bib.  Lit.,  XVIII,  p.  190  ff, 


332  OLD   TESTAMENT    HISTORY 

afresh,  worked  over,  and  put  in  a  new  light.  The  literature  that 
arose  was  literature  with  a  purpose.  Earlier  generations  might 
have  delighted  in  the  stories  of  patriarchs  and  judges  because 
they  were  stories  of  adventure  or  of  prowess.  The  time  was  now 
too  serious  for  that.  What  could  point  a  moral  was  valued  just 
because  it  could  be  used  to  point  a  moral.  The  idea  of  literary 
property  had  not  yet  arisen.  The  material  which  any  one  found 
at  hand  he  took  and  copied,  condensed,  or  enlarged  as  suited  his 
purpose.  Fortunately  for  us,  writers  of  the  new  school  were 
willing  to  preserve  their  sources  (so  far  as  they  preserved  them  at 
all)  in  their  original  words.  The  result  is  that  we  are  able,  in 
many  cases,  to  distinguish  the  earlier  from  the  later  material. 

We  may  suppose  that  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  was  the  first 
to  engage  the  attention  of  these  students.  This  book  had  be- 
come the  standard  of  the  prophetical  party.  Ezekiel  himself  had 
it  in  mind  when  he  spoke  of  the  statutes,  judgments,  and  com- 
mandments given  by  Yahweh,  by  observing  which  a  man  shall 
live.  The  book  had  already  received  additions  and  enlarge- 
ments since  its  first  promulgation.  But  a  code  of  this  kind  is  never 
complete,  as  is  shown  by  the  whole  later  history  of  Judaism. 
The  light  of  events  had  brought  its  teachings  into  fearful  dis- 
tinctness. It  was  only  a  kindness  to  succeeding  generations 
to  put  this  light  into  the  book  itself.  So  we  seethe  threats  made 
more  specific  by  passages  which  could  be  written  only  in  the 
exile.  As  a  code  of  laws  the  book  could  still  be  amended  from 
tradition;  moreover,  its  place  in  history  could  be  made  more  dis- 
tinct by  a  historical  introduction.1  The  material  for  this  intro- 
duction was  taken  from  the  earlier  history  of  the  exodus  known 
as  JE. 

The  main  parts  of  the  book  of  Joshua  were  rewritten  about 
this  time  from  the  Deuteronomic  point  of  view.  That  is  :  the 
conquest  of  the  land  was  viewed  as  complete  and  thorough  in- 
stead of  gradual  and  partial.  We  see  the  view  of  the  earlier 
prophets  here  brought  out — that  Israel  was  faithful  to  Yahweh  in 
the  earlier  time.  This  fidelity  must  have  been  shown,  so  the 
writer  supposes,  in  exterminating  the  Canaanites  in  accordance 
with  the  commands  of  the  Book  of  Instruction.  Joshua  there- 
fore appears  as  the  model  of  obedience  to  these  commands,  and 

1  Notice  Deut.  29,  30  l~u,  the  unhistorical  picture  in  2  "  "•,  and  the  allus- 
ions to  the  exile  in  4. 


THE   EXILE  333 

the  narrative  gives  us  exactly  what  did  not  occur  at  the  Con- 
quest. The  book  of  Judges  was  already  substantially  in  its  pres- 
ent form,  but  an  editor  found  it  necessary  to  point  its  moral  by 
making  it  show  how  Canaanitish  influence  had  regularly  corrupted 
Israel  and  as  regularly  led  to  disaster.  It  seems  probable  also 
that  the  farewell  address  of  Samuel  was  composed  at  this  time, 
and  possibly  the  account  of  Saul's  disobedience  in  not  extermi. 
nating  the  Amalekites  was  now  expanded  from  an  earlier 
nucleus.1  The  books  of  Kings  we  know  to  be  an  excerpt 
from  a  more  extended  historical  work,  made  from  the  Deu- 
teronomic  point  of  view.  In  the  author's  eyes  the  kings  of 
Israel  and  Judah  are  pronounced  bad  or  good  according  as  they 
conform  to  the  Deuteronomic  standard.  Tried  by  this  standard 
Josiah  is  the  only  one  (after  David)  who  is  fully  approved.  The 
people  at  large  are  uniformly  condemned  for  the  worship  at  the 
High-places.  That  the  prayer  of  Solomon  at  the  dedication  of 
the  Temple  is  the  composition  of  an  author  of  this  school  need 
hardly  be  pointed  out.1 

It  was  to  be  expected  that  other  codes  would  be  formulated  be- 
sides the  Book  of  Deuteronomy.  That  book  was  hortatory  in 
tone  and  its  legislation  did  not  embody  all  that  it  was  desirable 
to  have  on  papyrus  or  parchment.  Ezekiel's  great  idea  was  the 
consecration  of  the  people  to  Yahweh  and  this  might  be  more 
distinctly  put  in  a  convenient  hand-book.  Someone  who  thought 
thus  wrote  down  a  collection  of  laws  now  included  within  the 
Book  of  Leviticus  and  called  the  Holiness  Code.8  Possibly  the 
author  did  not  agree  with  all  of  Ezekiel's  regulations.  He  quite 
certainly  desired  to  have  some  priestly  traditions  formulated 
apart  from  the  visionary  second  temple. 

The  priest  must  teach  the  people  to  distinguish  between  sacred 
and  profane.  He  must  himself  know  what  is  sacred  and  what  is 
profane.  The  Holiness  Code  teaches  him  just  this.  That  it 

1  i  Sam.  15.     The  farewell  address  is  chapter  12. 

1  In  making  these  authors  exilic  I  do  not  mean  to  date  them  exactly  in 
the  thirty  years  between  Ezekiel's  death  and  the  advent  of  Cyrus.  The 
lower  limit  of  the  exile  is  not  a  fixed  date,  as  will  be  shown. 

'Lev.  ii  and  17-26.  The  critical  questions  are  discussed  by  Baentsch, 
Das  tfeiligkeitsgeset*  (1893),  Paton  in  the  Journal  of  Biblical  Literature 
(1895,  1897,  and  following  years),  and  the  usual  hand-books.  The  analysis 
is  indicated  in  Driver's  text  and  translation  of  Leviticus  (Sacred  Books  oftht 
Old  Testament). 


334  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

enumerates  a  large  number  of  offences  against  the  moral  law  as  con- 
trary to  the  "  holiness  "  of  Yahweh  and  the  people,  only  brings 
the  author  into  accord  with  his  predecessors.  His  point  of  view 
is  sufficiently  indicated  by  his  frequent  repetition  of  the  phrase 
"I  am  Yahweh,"  or  "You  shall  be  holy  for  I  am  holy."  We 
have  already  seen  how  fundamental  in  Ezek^el's  thought  was  this 
distinction  between  sacred  and  profane.  Its  first  application  by 
the  author  of  the  Holiness  Code  is  to  the  subject  of  foods  that 
might  be  eaten.1  Among  animals  the  great  majority  were  more 
or  less  distinctly  associated  with  some  god.  The  swine  is  an  ex- 
ample. This  does  not  mean  that  particular  swine  were  set  apart 
to  the  god  by  an  act  of  consecration,  but  that  the  whole  race  was 
the  property  of  that  particular  god — -Adonis  seems  to  have  been  his 
name.  In  the  earliest  stages  of  thought  the  animal  was  the  god. 
The  later  uncleanness  is  a  survival  of  the  totemistic  ascription  of 
divinity  to  the  animal.  But  an  animal  that  was  possessed  by  a 
demon  could  not  be  brought  to  Yahweh,  or  be  consistently  eaten 
by  his  worshippers.* 

Consecration  of  this  kind  is  contagious.  Not  only  is  a  swine 
taboo  (this  is  the  most  convenient  word),  every  one  that  touches 
him  becomes  taboo.  To  come  into  the  presence  of  Yahweh  in 
this  condition  is  as  offensive  as  it  would  be  to  bring  an  idol  be- 
fore Him.  It  is  probably  not  an  accident  that  the  animals  men- 
tioned first  in  the  list  of  those  forbidden  are  animals  that  play  a 
prominent  part  in  other  religions.  The  camel  was  sacred  among 
the  Arabs.  The  hare  is  sacred  in  almost  all  early  religions  and 
has  not  altogether  lost  his  supernatural  character  even  among  us.1 
The  coney  or  rock-badger  belongs  in  the  same  class  with  the  hare 
— the  ancient  observer,  at  least,  would  put  them  together. 

It  is  not  possible  for  us  to  go  through  the  list  and  show  that 
all  the  animals  forbidden  to  the  Jews  had  this  quality  of  sacred- 
ness  to  some  god.  But  when  we  remember  how  many  animals 

'Lev.  n.  The  similar  catalogue  in  Deuteronomy  is  probably  a  later  in- 
sertion. 

*  Examples  of  the  uncleanness  of  swine  in  other  religions  are  given  by 
Usener,  Sintfluthsagtn,  p.  93;  Wiedemann,  Religion  of  the  Egyptians,  p.8o 
(where  the  swine  is  an  incarnation  of  Set  and  therefore  an  abomination  to 
Horus);  Frazer,  The  Golden  Bough,  II,  p.  44  (Second  Edition  II,  p.  300 "•). 

8  The  negro  folk-tales  in  which  the  rabbit  plays  so  prominent  a  part  show 
how  superhuman  is  his  estimation,  and  the  rabbit's  foot  that  is  carried  for 
luck  is  another  evidence.  Arabic  parallels  are  well  known. 


THE  EXILE  335 

were  worshipped  by  so  advanced  a  people  as  the  Egyptians  (for 
example)  we  shall  find  it  altogether  probable  that  all  that  were 
taboo  were  taboo  for  the  same  reason. 

But  holiness  (in  the  sense  in  which  we  are  now  discussing  it) 
works  both  ways.  A  man  may  carry  the  contagion  of  unclean- 
ness  into  the  presence  of  Yahweh  to  his  own  hurt ;  he  may  also 
carry  the  contagion  of  Yahweh's  sacred  things  into  common  life 
which  also  would  be  to  his  hurt.  The  highest  degree  of  sacred- 
ness  is  dangerous  to  anyone — even  the  high  priest  must  exercise 
special  precautions  in  approaching  what  possesses  it.  Some 
things  must  not  be  eaten  even  by  persons  consecrated  to  the 
divine  service — they  are  reserved  for  Yahweh  alone.  Among 
these  is  the  blood  of  animals.  This  ganz  besondcrcr  Saft  has 
always  affected  men  with  awe  or  horror.  It  is  so  intimately  con- 
nected with  the  life  that  primitive  thought  identifies  them.  "  The 
blood  is  the  life  "  is  the  Hebrew  assertion.  But  the  life  so  evi- 
dently comes  from  God  that  to  eat  it  would  be  to  trespass  on 
that  which  belongs  to  Him  alone.  Hence  the  prohibition  to  eat 
blood  in  any  circumstances.1  And  with  the  blood  we  may  class 
the  fat  of  the  sacrifices.  This  is  Yahweh's  portion,  to  eat  it  is  to 
trespass  on  His  rights  and  to  bring  down  His  wrath.  Of  some 
sacrifices  the  whole  flesh  was  taboo,  even  to  the  priests.  All 
this  is  set  before  us  in  the  Holiness  Code,  though  not  so  much 
in  detail  as  was  later  found  desirable. 

To  our  conception,  regulations  concerning  food  do  not  belong 
in  a  divinely  given  law.  We  read  with  more  sympathy  the  next 
chapter,  for  we  also  regard  with  abhorrence  the  sins  which  are 
there  forbidden.  The  section  deals  with  the  subject  of  marriage 
and  specifies  the  degrees  within  which  marriage  is  prohibited, 
forbidding  also  adultery  and  unnatural  vice.1  While  we  find 

1 1  am  not  saying  that  there  may  not  have  been  even  cruder  ideas  at  the  basis 
of  the  original  prohibition.  It  may  have  been  thought  that  it  would  be  dan- 
gerous to  swallow  the  lift  of  an  animal.  But  the  Hebrew  idea  was  strictly 
religious.  The  prohibition  of  blood  was  not  a  mere  theoretical  enactment. 
Blood  was  eaten  at  certain  sacramental  seasons  by  the  Gentiles,  and  the 
Jews  may  have  been  tempted  to  follow  such  examples.  The  use  of  blood 
upon  the  tent  or  upon  the  door-posts  of  the  house  (as  at  the  passover)  shows 
the  magical  power  that  was  attributed  to  it,  as  does  the  care  taken  to 
cover  it  with  earth  when  an  animal  was  slain  at  a  distance  from  the  sanctuary. 

*  Lev.  iS6"30.  Paton  shows  that  there  are  four  pentades  or  two  deca- 
logues, with  a  concluding  exhortation.  The  original  conclusion  was  19  •  *. 


OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

ourselves  at  one  with  the  author  in  forbidding  what  he  forbids, 
our  point  of  view  is  different.  To  us  these  are  matters  of  social 
order.  The  things  prohibited  are  contrary  to  God's  will,  no 
doubt,  and  abhorrent  to  Him.  But  to  the  writer  they  stand  in 
the  same  class  with  the  eating  of  meats  prohibited.  All  are  ab- 
horrent to  Yahweh  because  violations  of  His  sanctity. 

To  understand  exactly  what  this  means,  we  need  to  go  a  little 
further  back.  There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  the  Ca- 
naanite  Baal  was  the  god  of  fruitfulness.  He  was  therefore  wor- 
shipped with  licentious  rites.  So  far  as  Yahweh  was  identified 
with  Baal,  these  rites  had  invaded  His  worship.  The  tradition  of 
the  golden  calf  shows  us  the  lascivious  nature  of  this  festival. 
Amos  implies  that  prostitution  went  on  at  the  altars  of  Yahweh. 
Hosea  asserts  that  the  young  women  of  Israel  gave  themselves 
over  to  strangers  at  the  sanctuaries.1  From  the  time  of  Asa 
down  repeated  attempts  were  made  to  clear  the  Temple  of  ob- 
scene ministers  to  unnatural  lust,  whose  presence  and  whose  re- 
turn when  banished  show  how  deeply  the  worst  forms  of  sexual 
vice  were  imbedded  in  the  popular  religion.  Ezekiel  testifies  in 
unmistakable  language  to  the  customs  of  Jerusalem  down  to  the 
very  siege  of  the  city :  "  In  thee  they  have  committed  lewdness; 
in  thee  they  have  uncovered  their  father's  nakedness ;  in  thee 
they  have  humbled  her  that  was  unclean  in  her  separation  ;  and 
a  man  has  committed  abomination  with  his  neighbour's  wife, 
and  another  has  defiled  his  daughter-in-law,  and  another  has 
humbled  his  sister,  his  father's  daughter."  *  The  language  indi- 
cates more  than  occasional  crimes,  it  indicates  something  habitual 
or  periodic.  The  only  reasonable  hypothesis  seems  to  be  that  at 
the  great  religious  festivals  held  in  the  name  of  Yahweh  or  of 
some  other  god,  there  was  great  sexual  license.  The  Queen  of 
Heaven  to  whom  Jeremiah  alludes  was  probably  worshipped  by 
such  excesses.' 

»Hos.  4";  cf.  Amos,  2»,  Ex.  32«-». 

1  Ezek.  22*";  cf.  i84- ».  The  whole  subject  of  the  influence  of  the  sex- 
ual  life  upon  early  Semitic  religion  has  been  developed  by  Barton  in  his 
Study  of  Semitic  Origins  (1901). 

1  Marriage  within  the  prohibited  degrees  is  alluded  to  in  the  case  of  * 
man's  marrying  his  half-sister  on  his  father's  side,  and  tradition  ascribes 
such  a  marriage  to  Abraham.  The  tradition  may  be  the  indication  of  an 
early  system  of  matriarchy  in  which  kinship  was  reckoned  only  on  the 
mother's  side.  But  even  then  the  survival  into  a  later  time  was  immoral, 


THE   EXILE  337 

The  idea  of  holiness  (or  sacredness)  conies  in  here  with  great 
distinctness.  The  phenomena  of  the  sexual  life  are  so  marked 
that  men  have  always  attributed  them  to  supernatural  powers. 
Woman  was  taboo  at  certain  periods.  Warriors  when  in  actual 
service  were  forbidden  to  touch  a  woman ;  *  their  consecration 
to  the  god  of  war  would  be  broken  by  touching  a  person  sacred 
in  another  sense — sacred  to  one  was  unclean  to  another.  The 
new  sense  of  consecration  to  Yahweh  which  was  aroused  in  the 
exile  led  to  stricter  regulation  of  all  that  pertained  to  the  sexual 
life,  especially  as  the  religion  of  Babylonia  sanctioned  some  of 
the  abuses  which  had  formerly  taken  refuge  under  the  traditional 
customs  of  Israel.  From  this  point  of  view  we  understand  more 
clearly  the  emphasis  which  the  Holiness  Code  lays  upon  these  en- 
actments.  They  represent  a  protest  against  a  heathenism  which 
had  offended  Yahweh  in  the  past,  and  must  not  be  allowed  to 
rouse  His  anger  in  the  future.  The  higher  moral  standard  was 
made  effective  by  union  with  ritual  ideas.  The  term  sacred  or 
holy  had  not  had  ethical  content ;  now  it  begins  to  have  it. 

It  would  be  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  collection  of  these 
laws  and  their  commitment  to  writing  was  undertaken  in  the  in- 
terests of  the  priests  alone.  The  sacredness  of  the  people  does 
indeed  culminate  in  the  priesthood.  The  author  agrees  with 
Ezekiel  in  taking  special  care  that  the  priests  should  keep  them- 
selves ritually  pure.*  But  the  object  of  one  as  well  as  the  other 
is  to  inform  the  people  of  what  must  be  done  by  the  priests  as 
well  as  by  themselves  for  the  continuance  of  Yahweh's  favour 
upon  them.  For  this  purpose  the  people  must  be  informed  what 
sort  of  sacrifices  are  acceptable,  what  restrictions  are  to  be  ob- 

and  Ezekiel  in  struggling  toward  a  higher  moral  standard  is  right  in  con- 
demning it. 

1 1  Sam.  2 1  *•*  from  an  early  document.  On  the  whole  subject  see  Schwally, 
Semitische  Kriegsaltertumer,  I  (1901)  p.  60  ff.  Schwally  points  out  that  the 
curious  regulations  for  warriors  in  Deut.  20  *"*  are  based  on  the  sexual 
taboo  (I.e.  pp.  75-98).  See  also  Frazer,  The  Golden  Bough*  I.,  p.  170;  II, 
p.  232  ff.  On  the  sacred  character  of  women,  see  Procksch,  Die  Bltttraeht 
bei  den  voriflamischen  Arabern  (1899),  p.  48. 

'Ley.  21  and  22.  The  regulations  go  beyond  Ezekiel  in  excluding  from 
the  service  of  the  altar  any  one  of  the  priestly  family  who  has  a  physical 
blemish.  From  analogy  we  may  suppose  that  these  unfortunates  were  sup- 
posed either  to  have  come  into  the  power  of  another  god  (or  demon),  or 
else  that  Yahweh's  displeasure  with  them  was  manifested  in  their  misfor- 
tune, in  which  case  they  would  not  be  acceptable  to  Him. 


338  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

served  by  the  priests,  who  are  to  eat  of  the  sacred  things.  That 
the  author  had  some  idea  of  enforcing  the  prerogatives  of  the 
priests  is  possible,  though  this  aim  nowhere  comes  to  the  front. 
He  is  genuinely  interested  in  informing  the  people  how  Yahweh 
will  have  them  live.  His  purpose  comes  out  in  the  concluding 
exhortation  of  his  tract,  in  which,  after  the  manner  of  Deuter- 
onomy, he  lays  upon  the  people  the  injunction  to  obey  these 
commands.  Here  we  find  the  promise  of  prosperity  in  case  of 
obedience,  while  for  disobedience  there  is  the  threat  of  sword 
and  pestilence.  And  the  climax  is  reached  in  the  declaration : 
"  And  yourselves  I  will  scatter  among  the  nations  .  .  .  and 
your  land  shall  be  a  desolation  and  your  cities  shall  be  a  waste. 
Then  shall  the  land  be  paid  its  Sabbaths,  all  the  days  that  it 
lies  desolate  while  you  are  in  your  enemies'  land;  then  shall  the 
land  rest  and  pay  off  its  Sabbaths."  '  The  exilic  point  of  view 
is  distinctly  visible,  and  the  chastened  temper  of  the  people  no 
doubt  received  this  message  with  humility. 

It  would  be  useless,  however,  to  deliver  such  a  message  unless 
there  lay  behind  it  a  hope  for  the  future.  Such  a  hope  was  the 
basis  of  Ezekiel's  preaching  and  it  furnished  the  motive  for  all 
the  literature  of  the  period.  The  only  reason  for  pointing  out 
the  errors  of  the  past  was  to  avoid  their  repetition  in  the  future. 
But  this  itself  implied  that  there  was  to  be  a  future.  In  the  exile, 
therefore,  we  must  locate  the  beginnings  of  what  we  may  call  the 
Messianic  hope.  Ezekiel  had  gone  counter  to  the  popular  desire 
when  he  so  nearly  ignored  the  king  as  head  of  his  new  common- 
wealth. The  people  of  Judah  had  been  under  the  rule  of  the 
house  of  David  for  more  than  four  hundred  years.  The  feeling 
of  loyalty  was  strong  in  many  hearts  among  the  exiles.  The  mis- 
fortunes of  recent  times  had  moved  people  and  monarch  to  sympa- 
thy with  each  other.  The  more  the  humiliations  and  privations 
of  the  present  were  felt,  the  more  did  the  traditional  glories  of  the 
founder  of  the  dynasty  come  into  view.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  David  was  a  man  of  great  personal  charm,  while  his  faults 
were  not  such  as  to  diminish  the  affection  of  his  people.  Time 
had  served  only  to  deepen  the  impression  made  by  him.  Tra- 
dition magnified  his  exploits  till  he  seemed  in  power  and  mag- 
nificence to  be  on  a  level  with  the  great  conquerors  of  Assyrian 
and  Babylonian  history.  It  was  natural  that  the  people  in  their 
1  Lev.  26  "  r.  (Driver's  translation.) 


THE   EXILE  339 

forlorn  condition  should  long  for  a  new  David  to  restore  the  state 
to  its  rightful  position  among  the  nations,  and  to  take  vengeance 
upon  the  Gentiles  by  whom  they  had  been  so  long  oppressed. 

This  hope  was  nourished  by  the  study  of  the  older  books  of 
prophecy.  These  books  were  indeed  not  intended  as  programmes 
for  the  future.  The  great  preachers  whose  words  they  embodied 
had  been  intent  on  reproof,  rebuke,  and  exhortation  of  their 
contemporaries.  They  had  frequently  threatened  calamity  for 
the  future,  but  this  was  in  order  to  make  an  impression  on  the 
present.  They  were  pointing  out  what  every  preacher  must 
point  out, — that  sin  is  contrary  to  the  mind  of  God,  and  that  one 
cannot  transgress  the  commands  of  a  just  God  with  impunity. 

But  these  threats  had  received  startling  confirmation  from 
events.  The  wrath  of  God  had  fallen  in  such  ways  as  to  em- 
phasise the  predictive  element  in  these  books.  So  startling  a 
confirmation  gave  the  books  an  enormous  importance,  and  they 
were  anxiously  studied,  not  only  that  the  people  might  draw  the 
lesson  of  the  divine  justice,  but  also  that  they  might,  if  possible, 
discover  something  of  the  divine  compassion  and  of  the  divine 
purpose  for  the  future.  The  promises  made  by  the  earlier  proph- 
ets, were,  indeed,  few  and  far  between.  Amos  seems  to  have  had 
no  hope  for  the  future.  Hosea's  anticipations  would  have  been 
equally  dark  had  it  not  been  for  his  confidence  that  Yahweh's 
love  was  inextinguishable.  Even  he  left  the  hope  to  be  in- 
ferred rather  than  gave  it  distinct  expression.  Isaiah  saw 
that  a  remnant  might  turn,  and  when  the  crisis  came  felt  that  it 
would  be  impossible  for  Zion  to  be  utterly  destroyed.  Jeremiah 
again  saw  only  the  dark  side.  In  spite  of  the  almost  total  ab- 
sence of  definite  promise  for  the  future,  however,  there  always 
was  in  the  prophets  the  conviction  that  Yahweh  is  faithful  and 
merciful.  Whenever  Israel  should  turn  to  Him  with  all  its 
heart,  it  would  surely  be  forgiven  and  restored.  The  exiles 
of  Ezekiel's  congregation  were  sure  that  they  had  definitely 
broken  with  the  past,  and  this  assurance  gave  them  a  larger  and 
more  lively  hope  for  the  future.  We  cannot  help  seeing  that  in 
this  condition  of  things  the  hopeful  hints  in  the  prophets  would 
be  made  more  definite.  Some  confident  scribe  at  this  time  added 
the  supplement  to  Amos  which  opens  a  vista  of  peace  and  pros- 
perity for  the  time  to  come.  The  discourses  of  Isaiah  were  much 
more  thoroughly  worked  over,  though  how  much  of  the  inserted 


340  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

material  belongs  in  this  period,  and  how  much  to  a  still  later  time, 
is  difficult  to  discover.  In  the  book  of  Jeremiah,  as  we  now  read 
it,  we  find  a  number  of  similar  passages  which  contrast  strangely 
with  the  uniformly  pessimistic  view  of  that  prophet.  Ezekiel 
himself  did  not  escape,  though  the  insertions  do  not  form  any 
large  part  of  the  work. 

It  cannot  surprise  us  to  find  that  this  hope  expressed  itself  in 
various  forms.  Sometimes  we  have  it  asserting  itself  in  connex- 
ion with  the  name  of  David.  Perhaps  the  chapter  which  makes 
David  receive  a  direct  promise  of  a  succession  of  descendants  who 
should  possess  his  throne  for  all  time  to  come,  belongs  in  this 
period.1  We  can  imagine  that  the  restoration  of  Jehoiachin  to 
liberty,  possibly  to  a  shadowy  title  of  king  or  prince,  might  sug- 
gest the  chastisement  which  the  author  speaks  of.  At  the  same 
time  there  were  those  who  followed  Ezekiel  in  distrusting  the 
kingdom  altogether,  and  who  hoped  for  a  kingdom  of  God  in 
which  there  would  be  no  earthly  king.  What  we  need  to  note 
is  that  in  these  and  in  other  forms,  the  Messianic  hope  began  to 
be  a  part  of  Israel's  mental  and  spiritual  support  from  the  exile 
on. 

The  exiles'  love  for  the  old  home  and  their  grief  at  its  desola- 
tion is  affectingly  brought  to  view  in  the  little  book  which  we  call 
by  the  name  Lamentations.  Tradition,  which  tries  to  associate 
every  literary  monument  with  some  well-known  name,  has  attrib- 
uted its  composition  to  Jeremiah.  It  cannot  be  by  him,  nor  in- 
deed is  it  all  by  one  hand.1  "  Poems  by  Two  Friends  "  would 
not  surprise  us  as  the  title  of  a  book  in  our  own  day ;  and  some- 
thing like  it  would  describe  the  book  before  us.  The  authors 
treat  the  same  theme — the  fall  of  Jerusalem — from  essentially  the 
same  point  of  view.  They  are  ardent  patriots  expressing  their 
grief  at  the  calamity  of  their  people.  Jerusalem  is  described  in 
the  language  of  the  prophets  as  a  woman  bereaved  of  her  chil- 
dren and  delivered  into  the  hands  of  her  enemies.  The  details 
of  the  picture  are  dwelt  upon  with  the  insistence  of  grief.  In 
vivid  personification  the  mourning  mother  herself  speaks — ap- 
pealing to  the  passers-by  to  know  whether  there  has  ever  been 
such  sorrow  as  hers.  She  confesses  the  sin  and  rebellion  which 

1 2  Sam.  7. 

1  Compare  the  careful  discussion  in  Driver's  Literature  of  the  Old  Ttsto* 
ment,  or  the  recent  commentaries  of  Budde  and  Lohr. 


THE   EXILE  341 

have  brought   this  punishment   upon  her.      Nevertheless,    the 
strangeness  of  the  catastrophe  baffles  the  mourning  poet : 

"  The  Lord  has  become  like  an  enemy ;  He  has  destroyed  Israel. 
He  has  destroyed  all  her  palaces ;  has  ruined  her  fortresses. 
He  has  multiplied  in  the  daughter  of  Zion  mourning  and  woe. 
Like  a  robber  he  has  violated  His  own  dwelling ;  destroyed  His  as- 
sembly hall ; 

He  has  made  forgotten  in  Zion  feast-day  and  Sabbath  ; 
In  hot  anger  He  has  spurned  both  king  and  priest."  1 

We  see  how  the  author  wrestles  with  the  thought  that  Yahweh 
is  the  one  responsible  for  the  profanation  of  His  own  sanctuary. 
But  we  see  also  that  he  will  not  let  go  either  his  faith  in  Yahweh 
or  his  love  for  Israel.  He  may  be  called  a  type  of  Judah  in  ex- 
ile. He  shows  the  heart  disciplined  by  suffering.  This  is  made 
evident  by  the  element  of  confession  so  prominent  in  these  poems. 
Zion  is  exhorted  to  pray  to  her  Lord.  Not  only  this ;  but  the 
author  himself  lifts  up  his  heart  in  confession  and  supplication. 
He  cannot  believe  that  Yahweh  will  be  blind  to  the  present  suf- 
fering of  His  people.  It  cannot  be  that  He  afflicts  because  He 
delights  in  suffering,  for  He  is  long-suffering  and  gracious.  It  is 
characteristic  of  post-exilic  Judaism  that  the  man  who  prays  and 
confesses  his  sin  is  conscious  of  speaking  as  the  mouthpiece  of  his 
people.  The  first  steps  are  already  taken  toward  the  ecclesiastical 
solidarity  which  finds  its  fullest  expression  in  the  Book  of  Psalms. 

Whatever  hopes  the  people  had  were  stimulated  by  events  in  the 
political  world.  Nabonidus,  the  last  king  of  Babylon,  offended 
the  religious  susceptibilities  of  his  subjects,  especially  of  the 
priests,  by  endeavouring  to  centralise  the  worship  of  the  provin- 
cial gods  in  the  capital.  Beyond  this  we  know  little  about  him. 
The  restiveness  of  the  Babylonians  made  it  certain  that  they 
would  welcome  an  invader  who  was  strong  enough  to  displace 
their  king.  Such  a  figure  was  rising  to  prominence  in  the  east. 
Cyrus,  King  of  Anshan,  a  small  country  beyond  Elam,  was  con- 
quering one  after  another  of  his  neighbours.  The  most  important 
of  these  was  Astyages,  of  Media,  whose  domain  fell  to  Cyrus  in 
549  B.C.  The  consolidated  kingdom  now  appears  under  the  title 
of  the  Medes  and  Persians.  Its  arms  were  next  turned  against 
Croesus,  of  Lydia,  whose  fall  made  such  a  deep  impression  on 
the  Greek  states.  Whether  Lydia  was  in  alliance  with  Babylon  as 

1  Lam.  2  *-*.     A  slight  correction  of  the  traditional  text  is  needed  in  v.  *. 


342  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

has  been  affirmed  is  not  clearly  made  out.  It  was  only  in  the 
nature  of  things  that  Cyrus  should  next  attack  the  most  powerful 
and  wealthy  country  within  his  view.  He  was  invited,  more- 
over, by  the  discontented  party  in  Babylon  itself.  Nabonidus 
remained  in  the  city  while  his  son  Belshazzar  commanded  the 
army  in  the  field.  After  this  army  was  defeated  by  Cyrus  the 
city  might  have  defended  itself  a  long  time  if  its  people  had  been 
united.  But  the  party  disaffected  to  Nabonidus  opened  the  gates 
and  Cyrus  took  possession  without  meeting  serious  opposition. 

The  innovations  of  Nabonidus  had  been  undertaken  from  re- 
ligious motives,  as  he  himself  claims.  He  rebuilt  a  number  of 
temples  that  had  fallen  to  decay  and  he  put  on  record  his  prayers 
for  the  favour  of  the  gods  he  so  faithfully  served.  To  the  He- 
brew onlookers  his  fall  must  have  been  proof  of  the  inability  of 
his  gods  to  save.  Cyrus,  who  in  a  few  years  had  made  himself 
master  of  a  great  empire  extending  from  the  border  of  India  to  the 
shores  of  the  ^gean,  seemed  much  more  distinctly  the  favourite 
of  the  true  God.  But  Cyrus  himself  had  no  prejudice  against  the 
Babylonian  gods  and  was  conscious  of  no  mission  against  them. 
The  only  inscription  which  we  have  from  him  declares  that 
Merodach,  the  chief  god  of  Babylon,  commanded  him  to  in- 
vade the  country,  and  that  the  god  marched  at  his  side  as  his 
friend  and  helper.  This  god  gave  the  city  into  his  hand 
without  battle  or  skirmish,  so  that  he  was  welcomed  by  the 
inhabitants.  Cyrus  further  declares  that  he  took  care  to  re- 
store to  their  ancient  dwellings  the  gods  whom  Nabonidus 
had  removed  and  he  prays  that  Bel  and  Nebo  may  be  gra- 
cious to  him  and  intercede  for  him  with  Merodach.1  In  fact, 
so  important  a  city  as  Babylon  must  influence  the  policy  of 
the  new  king.  In  a  certain  sense  it  continued  to  be  the  capi- 
tal of  the  empire.  Its  gods  must  be  recognised  as  a  matter  of 
state  policy.  Only  in  this  way  could  the  new  reign  be  made 
legitimate  in  the  eyes  of  the  Babylonians.  Whatever  religion 
Cyrus  may  have  adopted  as  a  matter  of  personal  conviction,  it  is 
clear  that  he  cherished  no  aversion  to  the  polytheism  of  Babylon. 
If  the  little  company  of  exiles  had  any  hopes  of  finding  a  conscious 
agent  of  Yahweh  in  the  new  conqueror  these  hopes  were  doomed 
to  disappointment. 

1  The  inscriptions  of  Nabonidus  and  Cyrus  are  given  in  the  Keilinschrift- 
licke  Bibhothek,  III,  2,  pp.  80-137 


THE    EXILE  343 

That  their  hopes  of  release  and  return  had  been  raised  is  made 
evident  by  two  short  pieces  now  joined  into  one  and  incorporated 
in  the  book  of  Isaiah.1  The  theme  of  the  first  is  the  attack  upon 
Babylon  by  an  army  of  fierce  and  cruel  warriors.  At  the  close 
of  the  poem  we  learn  that  they  are  the  Medes,  and  the  work  they 
are  to  accomplish  is  an  overthrow  "  like  God's  overthrow  of 
Sodom  and  Gomorrha."  In  the  second  poem  we  have  a  brill- 
iant sarcastic  dirge  over  the  King  of  Babylon  whose  destruction 
is  expected  in  the  near  future.  The  quiet  which  the  earth  en- 
joys, now  that  its  tyrant  is  slain,  is  shared  even  by  the  cedars  of 
Lebanon  ;  they  are  no  more  ruthlessly  felled  to  provide  timber  for 
Nabonidus's  building.  To  greet  the  shade  of  the  slaughtered  king 
the  personified  Sheol  rouses  up  departed  monarchs  from  the 
thrones  where  they  sit  in  state.  These  see  with  astonishment  one 
so  exalted  brought  down  to  a  level  with  them.  The  thought  of 
the  Babylonian  monarch  had  been  that  he  would  be  deified — that 
he  would  ascend  the  oriental  Olympus  and  set  his  throne  there 
among  the  great  gods.  Instead,  he  is  treated  worse  than  the 
meanest  of  his  subjects  :  "  Thou  art  cast  out  from  thy  sepulchre 
like  an  abhorred  abortion,  like  those  who  are  pierced  with  the 
sword ;  thou  goest  down  to  the  lowest  pit  like  the  corpse  that  is 
trodden  under  foot."*  The  close  is  made  by  Yahweh's  threat 
to  destroy  Babylon,  root  and  branch. 

Of  about  the  same  age  is  another  fragment  also  preserved  to  us 
in  the  book  of  Isaiah.1  The  author  is  deeply  moved  as  he  sees 
the  approaching  conflict.  As  the  watcher  in  the  desert  sees  the 
sand-storm  approach  so  this  watcher  sees  the  band  of  robbers  and 
hears  the  cry :  "  On,  Elam  !  Attack,  Media  !  "  He  looks  again 
and  a  caravan  approaches  with  the  cry:  "  Babylon  is  fallen,  and 
all  the  images  of  her  gods  lie  broken  on  the  ground." 

These  anticipations  were  not  realised,  but  the  hope  continued 
and  grew  stronger  with  the  years. 

1  Isaiah,  13 '-u".     The  verses  14'-*  are  the  link,  inserted  later. 
*  Isaiah,    14  «.    Free  emendation  of  the  text  is  necessary,  but  the  author's 
meaning  is  plain. 

1  Isaiah,  21  1-10.    The  obscure  verses  "-"  may  belong  in  the  same  period. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

THE    REBUILDING    OF    THE    TEMPLE 

THE  occupation  of  Babylon  by  Cyrus  came  late  in  the  year 
539  B.C.1  It  would  be  reasonable  to  expect  a  clear  account  of 
the  history  of  the  Jews  from  this  time  on,  for  we  should  suppose 
the  literary  tendency  powerful  enough  to  put  on  record  what 
actually  occurred.  But  the  expectation  is  grievously  disappointed. 
No  period  of  the  people's  history  is  more  obscure  than  that  which 
comes  between  the  advent  of  Cyrus  in  Babylon  and  the  mission 
of  Nehemiah  to  Jerusalem,  unless  it  be  the  period  which  im- 
mediately follows  the  work  of  Nehemiah. 

According  to  the  account  given  in  the  Biblical  book  of  Ezra, 
and  until  recently  commonly  accepted,  Cyrus  had  no  sooner  es- 
tablished himself  in  Babylon  than  he  issued  a  distinct  decree 
that  the  Jews  in  Babylonia  should  be  permitted  to  return  to  their 
own  city.  The  decree  gives  the  rebuilding  of  the  Temple  as  the 
special  purpose  of  the  return  ;  and  the  king  has  no  hesitation  in 
avowing  his  motive,  namely,  that  Yahweh,  God  of  Israel,  has 
given  to  him  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth  and  has  commanded 
him  to  build  Him  a  house  in  Jerusalem.  The  decree  is  dated  by 
the  Biblical  author  in  the  first  year  of  Cyrus,  by  which  he  means 
the  first  full  year  of  the  possession  of  Babylon,  in  our  calendar 
538  B.C. 

The  difficulties  in  accepting  this  account  as  it  stands,  are  of  the 
most  serious  character.  The  proclamation  which  Cyrus  is  said  to 
have  issued  declares  that  Yahweh2  has  given  into  the  king's  hands 
all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth.  We  have  already  seen  that  Cyrus 
claims  Merodach,  Bel,  and  Nebo  as  his  patrons,  and  the  incon- 

1  On  the  date  see  an  article  by  E.  Meyer  in  the  Zeitschr.  f.  d.  Alttest.  Wis- 
senschafl  (1898),  p.  339  ff.  ;  and  the  same  author's  Forschungen  zur  alten 
Geschichte,  II,  p.  468  ff. 

1  Yahweh,  God  of  Israel,  we  should  probably  read  with  the  Greek  Esdras. 
See  Guthe's  text  in  Haupt's  Sacred  Books  of  the  Old  Testament  (1901).  The 
passage  is  Ezra  I  l~*. 

344 


THE   REBUILDING  OF  THE  TEMPLE  345 

sistency  of  this  with  the  alleged  proclamation  is  obvious.  The 
inconsistency  might  not  be  so  striking  in  the  eyes  of  an  oriental 
— this  we  may  cheerfully  admit.  But  there  is  a  vast  difference 
between  claiming  that  the  patron  deities  of  Babylon  have  given 
their  own  city  into  the  king's  hands  and  avowing  that  Yahweh, 
to  him  the  God  of  one  of  the  most  obscure  corners  of  his  king- 
dom, has  put  into  his  power  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth.  All 
that  we  know  of  the  Persian  readiness  to  acknowledge  and  protect 
all  sorts  of  sanctuaries  '  does  not  justify  the  sweeping  language  of 
the  proclamation. 

It  is  quite  in  accord  with  this  that  the  alleged  proclamation  is 
in  a  style  unknown  to  the  genuine  edicts  of  the  Persian  kings. 
These  monarchs  call  themselves  "  King  of  Armies,"  "  King  of 
Babylon,"  "Great  King,"  but  nowhere"  King  of  Persia."  This 
title  was  given  to  them  only  after  the  Greek  conquest  of  the 
East  made  men  contrast  Alexander  with  his  predecessors  who 
were  primarily  kings  of  Persia. 

These  indications  are  sufficient  to  make  us  view  the  historicity 
of  the  account  with  suspicion,  and  we  are  compelled  to  look  more 
closely  at  the  whole  narrative  of  which  it  is  a  part.  The  books 
of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  (originally  one  book)  are  a  continuation 
of  the  books  of  Chronicles  and  are  by  the  same  author.  This 
author  wrote  certainly  not  earlier  than  300  B.C. — probably  con- 
siderably after  that  date.  His  distance  in  time  from  the  reign  of 
Cyrus  is  sufficient  to  prevent  his  having  an  accurate  idea  of  what 
took  place,  unless  he  were  careful  and  critical  in  the  use  of  his 
sources  of  information.  That  he  was  not  critical  is  made  clear 
by  his  earlier  work,  where  he  excerpts  from  documents  still  in 
our  possession.  His  method  there  shows  us  that  he  was  under  a 
strong  theological  or  ecclesiastical  bias  which  made  it  impossible 
for  him  to  see  the  actual  process  of  history.  This  same  bias  af- 
fects his  view  of  what  took  place  after  the  exile.  He  finds  in 
Jeremiah  a  prediction  that  the  exile  is  to  last  seventy  years.  He 
has  no  hesitation  in  asserting  that  the  prediction  was  literally  ful- 
filled by  a  direct  act  of  God  upon  the  heart  of  the  Great  King. 
Hence  his  free  construction  of  the  proclamation  which  (accord- 
ing to  his  logic)  Cyrus  must  have  issued  on  the  occasion. 

"k  See,  for  example,  the  inscription  containing  an  order  of  Darius  I  to  •  »« 
official  named  Gadata,  protecting  the  rights  of  a  sanctuary  in  Asi*  Mitn.v 
given  by  Meyer,  Entstehung  des  Judtntums,  p.  19  f. 


346  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

It  is  not  for  us  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the  Chronicler.  What 
we  need  to  know  is  how  far  his  picture  of  the  Persian  period  is 
reliable.  It  is  now  generally  admitted  that  his  testimony  alone 
is  of  very  slight  historical  value.  Where  he  used  other  docu- 
ments, these  must  be  judged  on  their  merits.  One  of  these  docu- 
ments (the  memoirs  of  Nehemiah)  will  occupy  our  attention  in 
the  next  chapter.  For  the  period  before  Nehemiah  we  have 
what  seems  on  the  surface  a  consistent  story  of  the  Jewish  resto- 
ration. We  hear  how  a  large  number  of  the  exiles  responded  to 
the  invitation  of  Cyrus.  An  elaborate  list  is  given  of  those  who 
made  up  the  caravan.  No  sooner  were  they  settled  in  their 
cities  than  they  began  the  work  of  rebuilding  the  Temple.  First 
the  altar  was  restored  and  the  service  was  resumed.  Then  tim- 
ber was  secured  from  the  Phoenicians,  and  in  the  second  year  the 
foundations  were  laid.  At  this  point  the  enemies  of  Judah  and 
Benjamin  came  and  asked  that  they  might  help  in  the  work.  On 
being  asked  to  give  account  of  their  claims,  they  alleged  that 
they  were  descendants  of  the  colonists  which  Esarhaddon  had 
settled  in  Samaria.  They  were  not  allowed  to  join  in  the  work, 
and  therefore  turned  against  the  newcomers  and  troubled  them. 
Thus  the  work  was  hindered  all  the  days  of  Cyrus.  The  form  of 
the  hindrance  is  indicated  by  the  copy  of  a  letter  sent  by  certain 
foreigners  in  Palestine  to  the  Great  King. 

According  to  the  narrative,  the  work  was  resumed  in  the  reign 
of  Darius,  and  brought  to  a  happy  conclusion.  A  second  en- 
deavour to  induce  the  king  to  stop  it  met  with  no  success.  In 
fact  (or  rather  in  theory),  it  produced  a  new  decree  in  favour  of 
the  work.  The  restored  Temple  was  dedicated  and  the  Passover 
was  observed,  after  which  Ezra  came  up  with  the  Law  in  his  hand, 
and  the  establishment  of  the  Law  was  followed  by  the  mission  of 
Nehemiah.  This  is  all  according  to  the  programme  which  an 
author  in  the  Greek  period  would  draw  up ;  first,  the  release  of 
the  Jews;  then  the  sharp  separation  from  the  Samaritans — for 
these,  according  to  the  author's  view,  were  the  only  people  left 
behind  when  Judah  was  carried  away  ;  next,  the  building  of  the 
Temple ;  after  that,  the  ^introduction  of  the  Law  ;  and  finally, 
the  rehabilitation  of  the  city  by  the  rebuilding  of  the  walls. 

But  history  does  not  usually  move  along  the  lines  we  mark 
out  for  it,  and  the  endeavour  to  make  a  consistent  histori- 
cal picture  on  the  basis  of  the  Chronicler's  account,  in- 


THE    REBUILDING   OF   THE   TEMPLE  347 

creases  in  difficulty  with  every  fresh  detail  which  comes  into 
view.  The  objections  to  the  historicity  of  the  decree  of  Cyrus 
have  already  been  noticed.  We  may  not  be  willing  to  as- 
sert that  the  Hebrew  historical  writers  decorated  their  narra- 
tives with  imaginary  decrees  of  kings  and  senates  as  they  dec- 
orated them  with  the  imaginary  speeches  of  their  heroes.1  But 
it  is  evident  that  a  writer  like  the  Chronicler  might,  on  oc- 
casion, give  his  conception  such  a  form.  And  the  obvious  im- 
possibility of  the  proclamation  attributed  to  Cyrus  throws  a 
shadow  upon  the  other  documents  alleged  in  this  narrative. 

The  next  of  these  is  a  list  of  names — ostensibly  a  register  of 
those  who  returned  from  the  Exile.  This  list  is  repeated  in  the 
book  of  Nehemiah,  and  there  we  discover  that  it  is  the  register  of 
all  the  families  which  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah  or  later,  claimed  to 
belong  to  the  district  of  Jerusalem,  on  the  ground  of  having  been 
carried  into  exile,  and  having  returned  thence.  The  most  that 
it  can  show  is  the  total  number  of  those  who  had  returned  between 
the  time  of  Cyrus  and  that  of  Nehemiah — nearly  a  hundred 
years.  Whether  it  even  shows  this  is  a  question.  In  any  case, 
it  has  no  bearing  on  the  first  return  for  which  the  author 
uses  it.1 

The  further  narrative  of  this  early  period  is  unintelligible.  The 
alleged  letter,  by  which  the  enemies  of  Judah  and  Benjamin 
troubled  them,  and  put  a  stop  to  the  building  of  the  Templet 
does  not  belong  in  this  connexion.  The  author  of  the  narrative 
speaks  of  events  in  the  reign  of  Xerxes  and  Artaxerxes,  both  of 

1  Stade  speaks  of  the  "well-known  custom  of  ancient  writers"  so  to  do 
(Geschifhtf,  II,  p.  122),  while  Meyer  denies  the  custom  (Entstehung  des 
Juden  turns,  p.  2).  In  this  general  form  the  discussion  is  unprofitable,  and 
Willrich  may  go  too  far  in  charging  wholesale  forgery  of  decrees  on  the 
Jews  of  a  later  time  (Judaica,  p.  40  ff. ).  But  for  the  Judaism  of  the  third 
and  second  centuries  before  Christ,  the  books  of  Daniel  and  Esther  furnish 
sufficient  evidence. 

1  Compare  Ezra,  2  and  Neh.  7  *~n.  The  extent  of  the  agreement  is  shown 
by  Meyer,  Entsteh.  des  Judentums,  p.  141  ff.  He  also  shows  that  the  most 
of  the  names  occur  among  those  who  signed  the  covenant  (Neh.  10).  A 
number  of  them  are  found  also  among  those  who  are  said  to  have  returned 
with  Ezra  (Ezra,  8).  That  the  narrative  of  the  return  in  Ezra,  I,  was  origi- 
nally fuller  is  shown  by  Torrey  in  the  Journal  of  Biblical  Literature  (180,7). 
p.  1 68  f.  On  the  whole  question  of  the  composition  of  the  books,  see  Tor- 
rey's  Composition  and  Historical  Value  of  Exra-Nehemiah  (G  lessen, 
1896). 


348  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

them  later  than  Darius.  The  complaint  to  Xerxes  is  only  alluded 
to,  the  one  to  Artaxerxes  is  reproduced  in  its  Aramaic  text.  But 
on  reading  it  we  are  astonished  to  find  that  it  speaks  not  of  re- 
building the  Temple,  but  of  building  the  walls  of  the  city.  It  is 
evident  that  these  are  two  very  different  things,  and  they  must 
not  be  confused  in  our  thought.  To  fortify  the  walls  of  the  city 
would  be  an  act  of  doubtful  loyalty.  Jerusalem  as  a  fortress  had 
always  been  difficult  to  conquer.  We  may  well  suppose  that  its 
reputation  in  this  respect  was  known  to  the  Persian  king.  We 
should  expect  a  complaint  against  such  a  work  to  be  received 
and  heeded  at  court.  But  the  exiles — or  whoever  was  at  work — 
were  rebuilding  not  the  walls,  but  the  Temple,  and  this  was  a 
very  different  matter.  Against  this  no  valid  objection  could  be 
made.  A  venerable  sanctuary  had  a  claim  upon  the  tolerance 
and  even  the  favour  of  the  monarch.  The  letter  given  in  this 
connexion,1  which  is  ostensibly  directed  against  the  rebuilding 
of  the  Temple,  really  declares  that  the  returned  exiles  are  rebuild- 
ing the  walls.  Only  thus  can  the  writers  rouse  the  fear  of  the 
king,  lest  the  city,  once  fortified,  should  withhold  the  taxes. 

It  must  be  clear  either  that  the  letter  thus  cited,  in  answer  to 
which  the  work  was  stopped,  was  a  gratuitous  libel  or  that  it  does 
not  belong  in  this  connexion.  If  it  were  a  gratuitous  libel 
it  ought  to  have  been  easy  for  the  Jews  to  show  that  it  was 
baseless.  In  any  case  the  Jews  should  have  shown  the  de- 
cree of  Cyrus  already  in  their  hands ;  it  is  impossible  to  sup. 
pose  that  they  had  not  received  and  preserved  a  copy.  The 
only  place  in  which  the  letter  can  have  any  meaning  is  in  the 
narrative  of  the  rebuilding  of  the  walls  under  Nehemiah.  This 
took  place  under  Artaxerxes,  and  the  enemies  of  Judah  and  Jeru- 
salem were  active  enough  to  make  such  a  letter  not  improbable. 
But  it  cannot  belong  where  the  Chronicler  has  placed  it. 

The  second  letter  (with  its  reply)  is  concerned  with  the  build- 
ing of  the  Temple,  and  it  is  sent  by  a  royal  official  whose  duty  it 
was  to  take  note  of  what  went  on  in  his  province.  How  much 
weight  we  can  accord  to  it  in  the  narrative  in  which  we  find  it 
must  depend  upon  the  picture  we  may  form  from  other  sources. 
Fortunately,  other  sources  are  within  our  reach  in  the  books  of 

1  Ezra,  4  1Ifr>;  notice  v.11.  The  writers  here  claim  to  have  been  settled  in 
Samaria,  by  the  great  and  noble  Asnapper  (Ashurbanipal),  which  does  not 
agree  with  the  mention  of  Esarhaddon  in  v.1. 


THE   REBUILDING   OF   THE   TEMPLE  349 

Haggai  and  Zechariah.1  These  two  prophets  took  a  prominent 
part  in  what  went  on  in  Jerusalem  at  this  time.  Both  of  them 
prophesied  in  the  reign  of  Darius  I,  who  came  to  the  throne  in 
521  B.C.*  The  change  of  ruler  was,  as  so  often  in  the  East,  the 
signal  for  outbreaks  in  several  of  the  provinces.  It  is  not  un- 
likely that  the  Jews  saw  in  these  disorders  signs  of  the  approach 
of  their  deliverance.8  For  some  reason  the  prophets  felt  that  the 
time  to  rebuild  the  Temple  had  come ;  the  people,  on  the  other 
hand,  felt  that  the  Messianic  time  must  first  be  manifest,  then  the 
Temple  would  be  rebuilt.  In  the  second  year  of  Darius  "  came 
the  word  of  Yahweh  by  the  hand  of  Haggai  the  prophet,  say- 
ing :  Say  to  Zerubbabel  ben  Shealtiel,  the  pasha  of  Judah  and  to 
Joshua  ben  Jozadak  the  chief  priest,  saying  :  Thus  says  Yahweh 
Sabaoth :  This  people  say  the  time  has  not  yet  come  to  build 
the  House  of  Yahweh.  .  .  .  Is  it  a  time  for  you  to  dwell  in 
your  panelled  houses,  while  this  House  lies  in  ruins?  .  .  . 
Thus  says  Yahweh  :  Go  to  the  hill  country  and  fetch  timber,  and 
build  this  House,  and  I  will  take  pleasure  in  it  and  will  reveal 
my  glory,  says  Yahweh."  *  To  whom  were  these  words  addressed  ? 
The  traditional  answer  is  that  they  were  addressed  to  the  re- 
turned exiles.  It  is  pleaded  on  their  behalf  that  they  found  so 
much  to  do  in  establishing  themselves  in  their  new  surroundings 
that  they  were  compelled  to  neglect  the  Temple.  But  this  is 
strange.  The  exiles  had  returned  (according  to  the  account  in 
Ezra)  for  the  express  purpose  of  rebuilding  the  Temple.  For 
this  they  were  armed  with  the  decree  of  Cyrus,  and  for  this  they 
had  received  free-will  offerings  from  their  fellow-exiles  and  a 
valuable  set  of  vessels  from  Cyrus.5  Why  they  should  have  left 
everything  undone  for  fifteen  years  is  inexplicable. 

lrThe  first  section  of  Zechariah  (1-8)  alone  comes  into  view  here.  The 
rest  of  the  book  confessedly  belongs  in  a  later  period. 

1  The  reader  may  remind  himself  that  Cyrus  was  succeeded  by  Cambyses, 
who  carried  the  Persian  arms  into  Egypt.  After  him  came  Pseudo-Smer- 
dis.  This  impostor  was  slain  by  a  band  of  nobles  who  put  Darius  Hystas- 
pes  on  the  throne.  Cf.  Justi,  Gesckichte  des  Alien  Persiens,  pp.  48-67. 

'This  is  denied  by  so  good  an  authority  as  Wellhausen,  Skitzen  und 
Vorarbeiten,  V,  p.  170. 

4  Haggai,  1 1~4, 7  '.  A  clause  has  come  into  the  Massoretic  text  by  the  error 
of  a  scribe  and  is  therefore  here  omitted. 

'  If  Torrey  is  correct  in  filling  out  the  text  of  Ezra,  I,  from  the  Greek  Es- 
dras,  the  original  account  of  the  Chronicler  also  gave  a  large  yearly  sub- 
vention in  money  for  the  building ;  cf.  Journal  of.  Bib.  Lit,  1897,  p.  170  ;  and 


350  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  alleged  letter  to  Artaxerxes  ex- 
plains nothing,  though  the  Chronicler  put  it  into  his  narrative  for 
the  purpose  of  explaining  something.  Haggai,  at  least,  knows 
nothing  of  any  earlier  attempt,  of  any  subvention,  of  any  decree  of 
Cyrus,  of  any  hindrance  on  the  part  of  the  Samaritan  colonists. 
Haggai  is  moving  the  people  to  rebuild  the  Temple.  Why  does 
he  not  remind  them  that  this  was  the  purpose  of  the  return  ? 
Why  does  he  not  recall  the  earlier  attempt  as  an  illustration  of 
their  zeal?  Why  does  he  not  remind  them  that  they  had  expe- 
rienced the  pain  of  being  banished  from  this  sacred  spot  ?  One 
would  think  that  such  arguments  would  be  ready  to  his  hand 
and  that  in  addition  he  would  emphasise  God's  gracious  purpose 
in  bringing  them  back,  as  well  as  His  use  of  Cyrus  as  an  instru- 
ment. But  these  arguments  are  conspicuous  by  their  absence. 

Haggai  knows  nothing  of  a  return  of  the  exiles — this  is  the  fact 
for  which  we  must  account.  To  account  for  it  we  must  get  rid 
of  the  Chronicler's  theory  that  all  Judah  had  been  carried  away 
and  that  its  land  had  been  left  empty.  It  is  evident  that  this 
writer  knows  of  only  two  parties  in  the  land  of  Israel — those  who 
had  been  in  exile  and  the  Samaritan  colonists.  In  this  he  is 
mistaken.  No  country  is  ever  completely  denuded  of  its  inhab- 
itants. Judah  certainly  was  not  thus  denuded,  for  the  Hebrew 
records  themselves  say  that  Nebuchadrezzar  left  enough  people  to 
care  for  the  vineyards  and  plantations.  That  these  were  not 
always  of  the  lowest  class  of  the  people  is  made  evident  by  the 
book  of  Jeremiah  and  the  history  of  Gedaliah  there  given. 
Whoever  and  whatever  these  people  were,  they  felt  themselves  to 
be  true  Judaites.  Ezekiel,  in  fact,  finds  that  they  attached  too 
much  importance  to  themselves  as  the  only  true  Israel.  They 
claimed  that  if  Abraham,  who  was  only  one  man,  received  the 
land  of  promise,  much  more  might  they,  who  were  many,  hope 
to  make  their  title  clear.1 

In  the  seventy  years  that  had  elapsed  since  the  fall  of  Jerusalem 
this  community  had  enjoyed  peace  under  Babylonian  and  Per- 
sian governors.  They  had  been  allowed  to  maintain  some  of 
their  ancestral  institutions  and  had  preserved  the  ancestral  relig- 

the   decree    of  Darius  which  purports  to  reaffirm  that  of  Cyrus,   expressly 
stipulates  that  the  expense  shall  be  borne  by  the  royal  treasury  (Ezra,  64). 

1  Ezekiel,  33 1*~79.  The  bitterness  of  the  prophet  is  a  foretaste  of  the  exclu- 
siveness  which  manifested  itself  in  the  community  organised  by  Nehemiah. 


THE    REBUILDING   OF   THE   TEMPLE  3$I 

ion.  It  is  a  mark  of  Persian  tolerance  that  they  are  now  under  a 
governor  who  is  a  member  of  their  own  royal  house.  For  Zerub- 
babel  was  a  grandson  of  Jehoiachin — that  unfortunate  king  of 
Judah  who  was  carried  to  Babylon  by  Nebuchadrezzar.  From 
his  name  we  gather  that  he  was  born  in  Babylonia.1  By  his  side 
we  find  a  priest,  Joshua,  doubtless  of  the  ancient  priestly  line. 
It  is  likely  that  worship  at  the  site  of  the  temple  had  never  alto- 
gether ceased.  Soon  after  the  burning  of  the  building  we  hear 
of  men  coming  from  Ephraim  to  make  their  offerings  at  the  ruined 
sanctuary.1  The  sacredness  of  such  a  site  could  not  be  destroyed 
by  any  act  of  the  invading  Chaldeans.  In  accordance  with  an- 
cient Israelitish  custom  a  rude  altar  of  unhewn  stone  could  be 
erected  on  such  a  site  at  any  time. 

All  the  probabilities  point,  therefore,  to  a  Judaite  community 
settled  at  this  period  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  old  capital 
or  even  within  its  fragmentary  walls.  Time  had  to  some  degree 
healed  the  ravages  made  by  Nebuchadrezzar's  invasion.  Equally 
with  their  brethren  in  Babylonia  these  people  looked  for  the 
restoration  of  the  old  commonwealth.  But  they  had  no  reason 
to  suppose  that  there  must  first  be  a  return  of  the  exiles.  This  is 
the  community  to  which  our  prophets  appealed.  From  their  own 
resources  they  responded  to  the  appeal.  It  is  likely  that  the 
Babylonian  Jews  still  took  a  keen  interest  in  their  old  home  and 
sanctuary.  The  effort  to  rebuild  their  Temple  would  meet  with 
their  sympathy.  But  no  move  on  their  part  to  return  home  was 
prompted  by  Cyrus. 

If  we  had  the  testimony  of  Haggai  and  Zechariah  alone  there- 
fore we  should  not  dream  of  a  wholesale  return  such  as  the 
Chronicler  alleges.  Let  us  turn  now  to  the  second  letter  which 
he  gives  us  as  written  from  Palestine  to  Darius.1  According  to 

1  Koster  doubts  the  Babylonian  birthplace  and  the  Davidic  descent  (Wider- 
herstellung  Israeli,  p.  39  f. ),  and  it  is  true  that  Haggai  lays  no  emphasis 
upon  the  Davidic  descent.  Moreover,  the  genealogy  comes  from  the  Chron- 
icler, whose  untrustworthiness  has  been  sufficiently  commented  upon.  It 
still  remains  probable,  however,  that  the  Messianic  expectations  of  Zerub- 
babel's  contemporaries  point  to  his  Davidic  blood.  Of  Zerubbabel's  prede- 
cessor, Sheshbazzar,  we  know  nothing,  except  that  he  bears  a  Babylonian 
name  ;  cf.  Meyer,  Entstekung,  p.  76. 

'Jer.  41*. 

1  The  account  is  Ezra,  5  *— 6  u.  It  is  clear  that  if  the  whole  account  were 
stricken  out  we  should  have  a  perfectly  good  connexion,  5  '  being  contin- 
ued directly  by  6  u. 


352  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

the  narrative,  Tatnai,  governor  of  the  Persian  province  of  Syria,1 
with  his  suite  came  to  Jerusalem  and  discovered  the  work  going 
on  at  the  Temple.  Inquiring  for  the  authority  under  which  the 
builders  were  acting,  these  men  wrote  an  account  to  Darius.  In 
this  they  repeated  the  allegations  made  by  the  Jews  concerning 
the  earlier  decree  of  Cyrus  and  asked  for  instructions.  On  recep- 
tion of  the  message  the  king  had  search  made  in  the  treasury  at 
Ecbatana,  and  the  decree  of  Cyrus  was  found.  Darius  therefore 
renewed  the  decree  of  Cyrus,  or  at  least  directed  the  governor  to 
let  the  Jews  proceed  with  the  building,  ordering  him  at  the  same 
time  to  reimburse  them  from  the  royal  revenues  what  they  had 
already  expended,  and  from  the  same  source  to  furnish  whatever 
the  priests  should  require  for  the  services  of  the  House.  It  is 
easy  to  see  the  inconsistencies  of  the  text  with  what  Haggai  and 
Zechariah  reveal.  The  writer  is  not  even  careful  to  preserve 
verisimilitude ;  he  makes  the  petitioners  request  that  search  be 
made  for  the  decree  of  Cyrus  at  Babylon,  and  then  relates  that  it 
was  found  at  Ecbatana.  It  is  inconceivable  that  Tatnai  should 
quote  without  comment  the  Jews'  declaration  that  it  was  Yahweh 
who  gave  their  forefathers  into  the  hand  of  Nebuchadrezzar.  The 
description  of  the  Temple  as  sixty  cubits  high  and  sixty  cubits 
broad  is  unintelligible,  as  is  the  direction  that  it  should  be  built 
with  three  rows  of  cut  stone  and  one  of  timber.1  Finally  the 
imprecation  of  Darius,  praying  that  the  God  of  the  Jews  would 
blot  out  any  one  who  should  put  out  his  hand  to  change  the  de- 
cree or  to  destroy  the  House,  is  entirely  out  of  place  in  a  royal 
mandate. 

It  must  be  clear  that  this  correspondence  is  simply  the  logical 
sequel  of  the  decree  of  Cyrus  and  can  claim  no  more  authenticity. 
The  author  started  with  the  theory  (given  him  by  tradition  no 
doubt)  that  Cyrus  had  ordered  the  Temple  rebuilt,  and  that  the 
work  had  been  violently  stopped.  Finding  from  the  books  of 
Haggai  and  Zechariah  that  the  rebuilding  actually  took  place  in 
the  reign  of  Darius  he  was  obliged  to  remove  the  prohibition  by 
a  new  decree.  No  more  impulse  was  needed  in  order  to  produce 
the  letter  and  decree  we  have  been  considering.  They  represent 

'"Beyond  the  River"  is  the  name  of  the  province  which  included  the 
region  from  the  upper  Euphrates  to  the  border  of  Egypt. 

1  The  author  was  familiar  with  brick  walls  bound  together  with  timber, 
but  examples  of  stone  walls  thus  laid  have  not  yet  been  found. 


THE   REBUILDING  OF  THE  TEMPLE  353 

what  must  have  taken  place  had  the  primary  tradition  been  cor- 
rect. Whether  the  Chronicler  himself  composed  the  documents 
or  whether  he  adopted  them  from  another  narrative — a  midrash 
of  his  own  school  of  thought — we  are  not  able  to  determine  and 
it  does  not  much  matter. 

For  historical  purposes  we  are  obliged  to  recognise  first,  that 
the  Chronicler  is  dominated  by  a  tradition  which  was  largely  the 
effect  of  theological  prepossession  ;  secondly,  that  the  preposses- 
sion incapacitated  him  from  drawing  a  reliable  picture  of  events ; 
thirdly,  that  the  decree  of  Cyrus  is  impossible;  fourthly,  that 
the  letter  to  Artaxerxes  is  of  no  use  for  the  period  under  discus- 
sion ;  lastly,  that  the  theory  of  a  return,  of  an  interruption  of  the 
work,  of  any  interference  by  Darius,  is  contradicted  by  Haggai 
and  Zechariah,  who  were  contemporary  with  the  events  alleged. 
To  this  we  may  add  that  the  theory  of  a  return  was  not  held  by 
Jewish  writers  in  the  postexilic  period,  except  so  far  as  they 
came  under  the  influence  of  the  Chronicler.  Nehemiah  in  his 
memoirs,  as  quoted  by  the  Chronicler  himself,  is  ignorant  of 
any  return.  Malachi  makes  not  the  slightest  reference  to  what 
must  have  been  fresh  in  men's  minds  in  his  time  had  it  taken 
place  at  all.  At  a  still  later  time  the  author  of  the  book  of 
Daniel  is  sure  that  the  exile  is  not  yet  at  an  end.  The  mirac- 
ulous intervention  of  Providence,  for  which  the  majority  of  the 
exiles  waited,  never  came.  And  the  longer  they  waited  the 
more  firmly  they  found  themselves  rooted  in  their  adopted 
country. 

Though  the  people  to  whom  Haggai  preached  were  dwelling 
in  panelled  houses,  they  complained  of  their  poverty.  They  had 
suffered  from  drought  and  bad  harvests.  Their  poverty  did  not 
come  (so  far  as  we  can  learn)  from  the  fact  that  they  were  bring- 
ing under  cultivation  land  that  had  been  for  decades  neglected. 
Nor  did  they  now  plead  anything  of  the  kind  ;  at  the  word  of 
the  prophet  they  went  to  work.  Possibly  the  old  solid  founda- 
tion walls  of  the  Temple  were  still  in  place.  At  the  beginning 
of  the  work,  indeed,  there  were  not  wanting  voices  to  declare 
that  this  house  would  never  be  like  the  old  one.  Haggai  does 
not  hesitate  to  allow  the  material  inferiority  of  the  present  build- 
ing. But  he  is  firm  in  his  conviction  that  its  real  glory  will  be 
greater:  "For  thus  says  Yahweh  Sabaoth  :  Yet  a  little  while 
and  I  shall  shake  heaven  and  earth  and  sea  and  land ;  and  I  will 


354  OLD    TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

shake  all  nations  and  the  treasures  of  all  nations  shall  come  and 
I  will  fill  this  house  with  riches,  says  Yahweh  Sabaoth."  l  With 
such  encouragement  the  work  went  steadily  forward. 

The  people,  however,  were  impatient  to  enjoy  those  material 
evidences  of  Yahweh's  favour  which  the  prophet  had  promised. 
This  comes  out  in  his  use  of  a  parable.  Haggai  is  directed  to 
ask  the  priests  two  ritual  questions.  The  first  is  this  :  If  one 
carry  sacrificial  flesh  in  the  skirt  of  his  robe  and  the  robe  touch 
bread  or  wine,  will  the  bread  or  wine  then  become  sacred  ?  The 
priests  answer  in  the  negative.  The  other  question  is  whether,  if 
a  man  unclean  (taboo)  by  contact  with  a  dead  body  touch  bread 
or  wine,  the  bread  or  wine  will  become  unclean.  The  response 
to  this  is  in  the  affirmative — illogical  as  it  seems  to  us.  By  tradi- 
tion the  contagion  of  the  unclean  is  stronger  than  the  contagion 
of  that  which  is  consecrated.  The  familiar  law  is  made  use  of  by 
the  prophet  to  account  for  the  delay  in  the  promised  blessing. 
The  people  expected  immediate  evidence  of  divine  favour  in  an- 
swer to  their  new  zeal.  The  prophet  replied  in  substance  that 
the  contagion  of  their  former  indifference  had  infected  them  too 
deeply  to  be  immediately  removed.  The  consecration  of  the 
new  zeal  could  not  be  expected  to  work  at  once.  But  (the  in- 
timation  is)  it  will  work  in  time  and  the  change  will  yet  show 
itself. 

At  about  the  same  time  with  this  discourse  of  Haggai,  the 
prophet  was  reinforced  by  his  colleague,  Zechariah.  The  purport 
of  Zechariah's  first  message  is  simply  that  though  the  men  of  former 
times  had  passed  away — prophets  and  leaders — yet  the  word  of 
Yahweh  was  abiding.  That  word  had  fulfilled  itself  upon  the 
disobedient  former  generation.  Upon  that  word  the  people  were 
still  depending,  but  its  fulfilment  was  conditioned  upon  their 
obedience.  One  feels  the  faint-heartedness  of  the  people  who 
were  thus  addressed. 

The   further   visions  of  Zechariah  make  us  realise  the  great 

1  Hag.  2  * f.  It  can  scarcely  be  accidental  that  the  account  describes  the 
people  as  the  remnant  of  the  people,  or  as  all  the  people  of  the  land.  This 
language  flatly  contradicts  the  theory  of  the  Chronicler.  It  is  perhaps  super- 
fluous to  insist  on  this.  But  one  may  be  allowed  to  notice  the  significant 
concession  of  Meyer  (Entstehung  des  Judentums,  p.  167)  that  the  chiefs 
of  the  districts  belonged  to  the  clans  which  had  not  been  carried  into 
exile,  but  which  had  possession  of  the  land  when  the  Jews  returned  under 
Cyrus. 


THE  REBUILDING  OF  THE  TEMPLE  355 

change  which  has  taken  place  in  the  believers'  theory  of  the  uni- 
verse since  the  time  of  Jeremiah.  Yahweh  now  has  His  throne 
in  heaven,  and  His  administration  has  been  elaborated  much  after 
the  fashion  of  the  Persian  court.  He  has  His  servants  who  go 
about  to  do  His  bidding.  Some  of  these  are  interested  in  the 
welfare  of  Judah,  and  the  prophet  is  permitted  to  overhear  their 
conversation.  He  sees  the  heavenly  post-riders,  who  bring  news 
of  the  state  of  things  throughout  the  earth.  He  hears  them  re- 
port: "  We  have  gone  over  the  earth,  and  all  is  quiet  and  secure." 
Then  he  hears  the  angel  of  Yahweh  l  ask  his  king  :  "  How  long 
wilt  Thou  not  pity  Jerusalem  and  the  cities  of  Judah,  with  which 
Thou  hast  been  angry  these  seventy  years  ? ' '  We  see  that  the 
prophet  had  been  longing  to  hear  of  those  overturnings  of  the 
nations  which  should  herald  the  promised  Day  of  Yahweh.  If, 
as  has  already  been  suggested,  the  disorders  which  arose  at  the 
accession  of  Darius  were  the  occasion  of  the  prophet's  first  activ- 
ity, these  disorders  must  have  been  speedily  quelled,  or  else  must 
have  been  confined  to  distant  regions.  We  cannot  otherwise  ac- 
count for  the  message  before  us.1  The  seventy  years  of  Yahweh's 
anger  are  the  seventy  years  of  Jeremiah's  prophecy.  The  angel 
of  the  vision  is  troubled  (as  is  the  prophet)  by  the  fact  that  no 
signs  of  Yahweh's  grace  are  seen,  though  the  period  of  punish- 
ment has  passed.*  But  the  expostulating  angel  is  comforted,  and 
the  prophet  is  bidden  to  say  that  Yahweh's  anger  is  now  turned 
against  the  nations  which  He  employed  to  execute  His  decrees 
upon  Jerusalem.  For  in  carrying  out  these  decrees  they  have 
gone  far  beyond  their  instructions  and  His  intentions.  Now  He 
is  about  to  have  compassion  on  Jerusalem,  and  His  House  is  to  be 
rebuilt.  We  are  reminded  by  this  again  of  the  organisation  of 
the  Persian  empire,  where  a  powerful  satrap  might  easily  evade  or 
exceed  the  commands  of  the  sovereign,  and  not  be  detected  unless 
the  sovereign's  personal  attention  were  called  to  the  matter.  This 
vision  is  followed  by  another  which  shows  the  workmen  ready 

1  That  is,  the  particular  angel  who  had  brought  revelations  to  Israel  in 
times  past,  and  who  is,  therefore,  specially  interested  in  the  fortunes  of  this 
people. 

1  Zech.  I  If.  Meyer  says:  "  Syria  was  not  affected  by  the  rebellions  of 
521-519  B.C."  Entstthung,  p.  82. 

*  The  mention  of  this  period  of  time  seems  definitely  to  locate  the  vision 
in  the  reign  of  Darius  I  instead  of  in  the  reign  of  a  later  Darius,  as  has  been 
advocated  by  some  critics. 


356  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

with  their  tools  to  dehorn  the  nations  which  have  oppressed  Israel. 
Yahweh  is,  in  fact,  ready  to  take  His  journey  to  His  ancient  dwell- 
ing, the  Temple.1 

It  could  hardly  be  that  the  zeal  of  the  people  should  be  aroused 
for  the  work  of  rebuilding,  without  Messianic  hopes  and  expecta- 
tions being  also  quickened.  We  are  not  much  surprised,  therefore, 
to  find  the  prophets  urging  the  people  not  only  to  rebuild  the 
Temple,  but  also  to  take  direct  steps  toward  the  realisation  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God.  Of  course,  rebellion  against  the  Persian  power 
was  not  to  be  thought  of — though  independence  was  the  goal 
toward  which  the  people  must  be  moving  even  when  not  avow- 
ing it  to  themselves.  For  the  present,  internal  affairs  might  be 
arranged  in  accordance  with  Ezekiel's  programme  of  complete 
consecration.  The  first  and  most  obvious  thing  to  do  was  to 
make  the  priesthood  independent  of  the  secular  power.  This  we 
may  suppose  to  be  one  interest  of  what  we  may  call  the  Messianic 
party.  Others  there  were  who  looked  on  any  innovation  with 
suspicion.  They  found  reason  to  complain  of  Joshua,  the  chief 
priest.  They  thought  him  already  too  powerful,  or  too  conspic- 
uous in  the  community.  Possibly  they  found  fault  with  his  per- 
sonal character.  Zechariah  is  altogether  on  his  side,  and  makes  a 
defence  of  him  in  a  dramatic  vision.  In  this  vision  he  sees  the 
heavenly  court  of  justice  in  session,  with  Yahweh  in  the  character 
of  presiding  judge.  The  official  prosecutor  is  present  in  the  per- 
son of  Satan,  who  here  appears  for  the  first  time  in  Hebrew  litera- 
ture. He  is  obviously  not  the  spirit  of  evil  who  appears  in  later 
Jewish  writings ;  he  is  only  an  officer  of  justice,  whose  business 
it  is  to  see  that  the  case  against  criminals  is  properly  presented.* 
Before  this  court  Joshua  is  brought,  clothed  in  the  miserable  ap- 
parel which  an  accused  person  puts  on  to  move  the  mercy  of  the 

1  Zech.  I  T-2  &.  The  exhortation  to  flee  from  Babylon,  which  is  found  a 
little  later  (2  1I),  is  another  indication  that  no  return  had  yet  taken  place ; 
cf.  also  6  15,  8  TI  8.  The  desperate  attempt  of  Sellin,  Studien  zur  Entsteh- 
ungsgesch.  derJiid.  Gemeinde,  II,  p.  45  ff. ,  to  harmonise  Haggai  and  Zech- 
ariah with  the  received  view,  is  the  best  evidence  that  reconciliation  is  im- 
possible. I  have  not  seen  Hoonacker's  argument,  a  considerable  part  of 
which  is  adopted  by  Sellin. 

*  Satan  is,  therefore,  in  this  period  a  good  angel,  carrying  out  the  will  of 
Yahweh.  In  the  book  of  Job  he  is  virtually  the  same — more  distinctly  the 
inspector  of  morals,  perhaps.  Babylonian  precedents  are  given  by  Zimmern 
in  Kcilinschr.  und  Altes  Testament?  p.  463. 


THE   REBUILDING  OF  THE  TEMPLE  357 

court.  As  the  matter  is  presented  to  us,  we  hear  nothing  of  the 
charges,  but  the  sentence  which  is  pronounced  is  in  Joshua's 
favour.  Satan  is  rebuked,  Joshua  is  clothed  in  seemly  garments 
\vith  the  tiara  on  his  head,  and  he  is  given  jurisdiction  over  the 
house  and  court  of  Yahweh.  The  meaning  is  that  the  new  prom- 
inence of  the  high  priest  (as  we  may  call  him),  has  the  endorse- 
ment of  the  prophet.1  And  this  prominence  is  authorised  as  one 
feature  of  the  Messianic  time,  for  in  immediate  connexion  with 
it  comes  a  specific  promise  of  the  Branch — a  name  for  the  Messiah 
possibly  as  old  as  Jeremiah.  Joshua  is  described  as  a  sign  that 
the  Messiah  is  to  come  in  the  immediate  future.  In  fact,  in  Zech- 
ariah's  view  the  man  is  already  in  Jerusalem,  though  not  yet 
crowned.*  In  a  later  discourse  he  is  described  as  the  one  who  is 
to  build  the  Temple  of  Yahweh. 

Careful  examination  of  these  passages  leaves  no  doubt  that 
Zechariah  identified  Zerubbabel  with  the  expected  Messiah. 
The  beginning  of  the  Temple  was,  in  his  mind,  the  harbinger  of 
the  restoration  of  Israel  under  the  ideal  king.  Zerubbabel  was 
to  carry  that  work  to  completion  and  then  be  crowned,  after 
which  he  and  Joshua  were  jointly  to  administer  the  government. 
As  if  to  leave  no  doubt  in  our  minds,  the  prophet  finds  new  oc- 
casion to  certify  his  belief.  Some  of  the  exiles,  we  learn,  having 
heard  of  the  project  of  rebuilding  the  Temple,  have  sent  a  dele- 
gation with  votive  offerings  for  the  sanctuary.  These  men  are 
sojourning  in  Jerusalem,  and  Zechariah  is  commanded  to  take 
the  gold  and  silver  they  have  brought  and  make  of  it  a  crown. 
The  crown  is  indeed  to  be  kept  in  the  Temple  as  a  memorial  of 
the  givers.  But  it,  is  to  be  none  the  less  a  sign  of  the  kingship 
of  Zerubbabel.3  With  this  agrees  the  promise  of  Haggai  to 
Zerubbabel  :  "  I  will  take  thee,  Zerubbabel,  my  servant,  and 

1  Zech.  3  •  r.  The  description  of  Joshua  as  a  brand  plucked  from  the  bum- 
ing  (v.  *)  has  been  urged  as  evidence  that  Joshua  had  been  in  exile.  But 
the  phrase  is  equally  appropriate  (even  more  so)  if  he  was  a  member  of  the 
the  remnant  community  that  had  not  been  carried  away. 

1  Zech.  3  *.  The  word  Branch  as  designation  of  the  Messiah  is  found  in 
Jer.  23*  and  33  1S.  Both  passages  are  of  doubtful  authenticity,  as  is  Isaiah 
II  *,  a  passage  similar  in  meaning  though  not  using  the  same  word. 
Zechariah's  meaning  is  unmistakable ;  cf.  6  ". 

*The  present  text  (Zech.  6n)  puts  the  crown  on  the  head  of  Joshua,  bat 
this  is  an  alteration  of  the  original  sense,  as  is  evident  from  the  whole  con- 
text 


358  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

will  make  Ihee  like  a  seal  ring,  for  thee  have  I  chosen,  says 
Yahweh."1 

The  various  visions  in  which  Zechariah  sets  forth  the  coming 
golden  age  may  be  briefly  noticed.  He  expects  the  divine  ad- 
ministration to  purge  the  community  of  the  sinners,  whose  pres- 
ence is  an  offence  to  Yahweh,  by  an  act  of  supernatural  efficacy. 
Thus  we  must  interpret  the  flying  roll  written  over  with  curses., 
which  goes  about  and  destroys  the  evil-doers  together  with  their 
houses.  The  conscience  of  the  people  is  doubtless  burdened  (as  in 
the  time  of  Ezekiel)  by  the  thought  of  the  guilt  inherited  from  the 
fathers.  To  relieve  them,  the  prophet  pictures  the  guilt  in  the 
form  of  a  woman  who  is  shut  up  in  a  cask,  and  carried  away  by 
two  winged  creatures  to  the  land  of  Babylonia — a  materialistic 
expression  of  the  thought  that  Yahweh's  wrath  will  no  longer 
find  its  object  in  Judah,  but  in  the  land  of  the  oppressor.* 

That  the  Messianic  time  has  dawned  and  that  the  full  glory  of 
its  day  is  soon  to  appear  is  the  absorbing  thought  of  Zechariah. 
That  its  benefits  will  not  be  confined  to  Judah  is  indicated  when 
the  prophet  declares  that  many  nations  will  join  themselves  to 
Yahweh  in  that  day  and  will  become  His  people ;  and  again  that 
ten  men  of  various  nations  will  attach  themselves  to  each  Jew  in 
order  to  find  the  true  God.  This  thought,  with  which  Zecha- 
riah closed  his  book,  is  more  eloquently  expressed  in  a  passage 
now  imbedded  in  the  works  of  older  prophets,  but  which  may 
belong  in  this  period  :  "It  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  latter  days 
that  the  Temple  Mount  shall  be  established  as  the  highest  of  the 
mountains,  and  shall  be  exalted  above  the  hills  ;  and  all  nations 
shall  stream  to  it,  and  many  peoples  shall  set  forth  and  say  : 
Come,  let  us  go  up  to  the  Mount  of  Yahweh,  to  the  House  of 
the  God  of  Jacob."8 

The  vitality  of  the  Messianic  hope  is  evidenced  by  the  fact 

1  Hag.  2M  The  rejection  of  Jehoiachin  is  described  as  the  plucking  the 
seal  ring  from  Yahweh's  right  hand  (Jer.  22  "),  and  the  election  of  Zerub- 
babel  to  the  kingship  could  not  be  better  set  forth  than  by  the  language  of 
Haggai.  It  is  indeed  probable  that  Haggai  has  Jeremiah's  metaphor  in 
mind. 

1  The  two  visions  are  contained  in  Zech.  5.  Chapter  4  gives  the  vision  of 
the  two  olive  trees,  and  is  designed  to  assure  Zerubbabel  of  divine  support. 

•Compare  Zech.  8  *°-M  with  Isaiah,  2  *-*,  Mic.  4  1~*.  The  latter  passage, 
deiervedly  beloved,  must  be  a  late  insertion  in  the  text  of  the  two  prophetic 
books — as  is  now  generally  recognised. 


THE   REBUILDING   OF   THE   TEMPLE  359 

that  it  survived  the  disappointment  which  must  have  come  upon 
its  cherishers  at  the  close  of  this  period.  The  impetus  which 
was  given  by  the  prophetic  exhortations  was  sufficient  to  secure 
the  completion  of  the  Temple  (in  some  form)  in  the  sixth  year 
of  Darius.1  But  with  this  date  thick  darkness  falls  upon  the  lit- 
tle community  in  Jerusalem  and  its  immediate  vicinity.  It  may 
be  that  the  extravagant  expectations  which  attached  themselves 
to  Zerubbabel  made  him  obnoxious  to  the  Persian  court.  It 
may  be  that  an  attempt  was  made  by  him  to  rebuild  the  city 
walls,  and  that  this  produced  a  crisis  from  which  the  city  emerged 
again  in  ruins.1  More  probably,  however,  the  little  common- 
wealth suffered  only  from  the  accidents  of  its  position.  Evidence 
of  the  special  presence  of  Yahweh  there  was  none.  The  city 
was  imperfectly  fortified,  and  in  times  when  the  central  govern- 
ment was  careless  it  must  have  suffered  from  the  raids  of  the 
Beda.vin.  The  Edomites  were  pushing  up  from  the  south — small 
blam :  to  them,  for  the  Nabateans  were  crowding  on  them  in  the 
rear. 

To  the  momentary  enthusiasm  aroused  by  the  prophets,  there- 
fore, succeeded  a  period  of  depression.  The  brethren  in  Babylonia 
may  have  had  a  sentimental  interest  in  the  restored  Temple  and 
we  may  suppose  that  they  sent  occasional  contributions  to  it. 
But  like  the  Jews  of  later  ages  they  were  probably  willing  to  stay 
where  they  found  themselves  well  off  rather  than  give  up  a  cer- 
tainty for  an  uncertain  livelihood.  The  people  in  Judah  were 
heavily  taxed.  The  new  government — high-priest  alongside  of 
pasha — can  hardly  have  been  without  its  disadvantages.  Even 
Zechariah  had  some  suspicion  that  the  two  rulers  might  not  al- 
ways agree.*  In  a  small  community  facing  the  problems  of 
poverty,  party  feeling  is  sure  to  run  high.  The  Persian  govern- 

'  The  date  is  given  by  Meyer  as  April  9,  515  B.C.  (Entstehung  des  Jvden- 
turns,  p.  54). 

1  Ingenious  attempts  to  write  a  history  of  Zerubbabel's  ris«  and  fall  hare 
been  made,  of  which  the  most  elaborate  is  Sellin's  Serubbabel  (1898).  His 
arguments  are  more  acute  than  convincing,  resting  on  precarious  theories 
concerning  the  date  of  the  documents.  The  author  now  admits  that  he  was 
mistaken  in  some  of  his  conclusions — cf.  his  Studien  tur  E»*stekungs- 
geschichte  dtr  Jiidifchen  Gemeinde,  I  (.'901),  pp.  230-238. 

'As  pointed  out  by  Wellhausen  on  Zech.  6".  If  "one  bad  general  is 
better  than  two  good  ones,"  the  certainty  of  the  dual  control  working  badly 
in  any  time  of  stress  may  be  assumed. 


360  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

ment  removed  Zerubbabel — at  least  we  hear  no  more  of  a  Davidic 
pasha.  We  have  pretty  good  evidence  that  the  Temple  fell  into 
decay  and  that  its  services  were  an  object  of  contempt  on  the 
part  of  the  majority  of  the  people.  Doubtless  the  priests  were 
unable  to  support  themselves  l  except  by  menial  occupations  which 
kept  them  away  from  the  sanctuary  or  interfered  with  the  decent 
observance  of  the  rites. 

The  state  of  things  in  the  Jerusalem  of  this  period  is  vividly 
put  before  us  by  the  little  book  of  Malachi — a  voice  and  nothing 
more — deploring  evils  which  were  felt  by  a  few  spiritually  minded 
men  who  held  fast  their  hope  in  circumstances  that  prompted  to 
despair.*  The  prophet  begins  by  encouraging  his  people  in  the 
face  of  the  Edomite  invasion,  giving  them  the  assurance  that 
though  Esau  was  Jacob's  brother,  he  was  hated  by  Yahweh  in 
proportion  as  Jacob  was  loved.  The  author's  main  purpose, 
however,  is  to  rebuke  the  laxity  and  faint-heartedness  of  both 
priests  and  people.  In  the  circumstances  that  we  have  surmised 
we  can  hardly  wonder  that  the  priests  have  become  indifferent  to 
the  honour  of  their  God.  They  bring  maimed  and  sick  animals 
to  the  altar  and  say :  //  is  no  harm?  The  prophet  points  out 
the  indignity  thereby  offered  to  Yahweh.  If  they  were  to  make 
such  presents  to  the  civil  ruler  they  would  be  taught  a  lesson : 
"  Bring  it  to  the  Pasha;  will  he  look  favourably  upon  you?  " 
The  indignity  is  the  more  striking  because  it  is  in  contrast  with 
the  conduct  of  the  Gentiles.  They  know  how  to  render  accept- 
able homage  to  the  one  true  God  :  "  From  the  rising  of  the  sun 
to  its  going  down,  my  name  is  great  among  the  nations.  Every- 
where pure  offerings  are  brought  to  my  name  because  my  name 
is  great  among  the  nations ;  butyou  keep  on  profaning  it  in  that 

'•  The  demand  that  the  ministers  of  religion  should  be  enabled  to  live  a 
memchenwiirdiges  Dasein  seems  reasonable  in  the  interest  of  religion  itself. 

1  The  book  is  really  anonymous,  Malachi  (my  messenger)  being  only  a 
conjecture  of  the  editors.  Perhaps  the  disrepute  into  which  the  prophets 
fell  after  the  non-fulfilment  of  the  hopes  fostered  by  Haggai  and  Zechariah, 
led  the  author  to  conceal  his  identity.  The  text  of  the  book  has  been  help- 
fully treated  by  Torrey  in  the  Journal  of  Bib.  Lit.  for  1898,  pp.  i-i$.  On 
the  Edomite  possession  of  Judah,  see  an  article  by  the  same  author,  ibid., 
p.  i6ff. 

1  Is  it  a  case  where  the  priests  substitute  inferior  animals  for  those  actually 
presented  by  the  worshippers  ?  It  would  seem  to  be  to  the  interest  of  the 
priests  themselves  to  refuse  unfit  offerings.  But  by  substitution  they  might 
profit  themselves. 


THE   REBUILDING   OF   THE   TEMPLE  361 

you  say:  The  table  of  Yahweh  is  contemptible."1  The  plain 
teaching  of  the  passage  is  that  the  most  worthy  worship  of  the 
Gentiles  is  really  offered  to  the  true  God. 

And  yet  the  foreign  cults  which  are  making  their  way  into  the 
Jewish  community  are  not  a  manifestation  of  true  religion — prob- 
ably we  should  feel  the  same  way  about  the  petty  superstitions  of 
the  Syrian  peasants.  These  superstitions  are  attracting  the  wayward 
hearts  of  the  Jews,  so  that  the  covenant  with  Yahweh  is  likely  to 
be  forgotten.1  The  danger  of  such  defection  was  less  threatening, 
however,  than  that  which  arose  from  the  general  scepticism  of  the 
people.  They  said  that  good  and  evil  were  both  alike  to  Yah- 
weh ;  it  was  impossible  to  call  Him  a  God  of  justice.  The  only 
reply  that  our  author  can  make  is  to  repeat  the  promise  of  former 
prophets — there  will  be  a  sudden  revelation  of  that  justice,  a  Day 
of  Yahweh.  But  as  with  the  former  prophets  this  Day  is  not 
necessarily  a  day  of  good  to  Israel,  so  now  we  hear  :  "  Who  may 
endure  the  day  of  His  coming,  and  who  can  stand  firm  when  He 
shall  appear  ?  For  He  is  like  the  refiner's  fire  and  like  the  fuller's 
alkali.  ...  I  will  draw  near  you  for  judgment,  and  I  will 
be  a  swift  witness  against  the  sorcerers  and  the  adulterers  and  the 
perjurers  and  against  those  who  oppress  the  hireling,  the  widow, 
and  the  fatherless,  and  against  those  who  abuse  the  client  and 
who  do  not  fear  Me,  says  Yahweh  Sabaoth."  So  we  hear  again 
the  old  prophetic  demand  for  righteousness  between  man  and 
man.  The  conscience  of  the  ritualist  has  not  been  blunted  by 
his  scrupulousness  in  matters  of  external  service — though  this 
scrupulousness  would  not  have  been  intelligible  to  the  older 
prophets. 

Although  the  prophet  rebukes  the  priests  for  their  neglect  of 
the  services,  he  recognises  the  fact  that  it  is  the  people's  treat- 
ment of  the  priests  which  is  at  the  bottom  of  the  evil.  The  Tem- 
ple service  cannot  be  worthily  maintained  unless  the  contributions 

1  Mai.  I  J.  The  universalism  of  the  declaration  is  one  of  the  most  remark- 
able things  in  the  Old  Testament.  But  it  does  not  seem  possible  to  under- 
stand the  passage  in  any  other  way  than  it  is  taken  above.  The  universalism 
is  the  more  remarkable  because  of  the  author's  ritualistic  tendencies. 

1  This  seems  to  be  the  only  way  to  understand  the  passage,  Mai.  2  I*-w- 
The  other  view,  which  makes  it  refer  to  intermarriage  with  foreigners,  pre- 
sents serious  difficulties ;  see  the  discussion  of  the  passage  in  Wellhausen's 
Skiiten  und  Vorarbeitm,  V. 

»M*1.     « 


362  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

are  regularly  made.  The  people  seem  to  have  withheld  the  tithes 
on  the  plea  that  the  harvests  are  bad.  Malachi  holds,  with  the 
earlier  prophets,  that  fidelity  to  Yahweh  will  make  the  harvests 
good.  And  fidelity  to  Yahweh  will  be  manifested  by  bringing 
the  tithes  and  first-fruits.  So  we  find  a  specific  promise  that  if 
the  tithes  and  offerings  are  brought  in  full  measure,  the  rains  will 
be  abundant  and  the  harvests  bountiful.1  Even  with  prompt 
payment,  however,  it  is  not  certain  that  the  tithes  will  be  suffi- 
cient to  support  the  priests.  At  least,  the  ecclesiastical  taxes 
were  made  heavier  at  a  later  time. 

The  period,  then,  was  one  of  great  depression.  The  faith  of 
the  great  body  of  the  people  had  grown  cold.  The  most  signifi- 
cant fact  is  the  existence  of  a  little  group  of  faithful  spirits  who 
will  not  yield  to  the  prevailing  scepticism.  They  are  constant  in 
their  observance  of  the  ancestral  Law — though  even  they  are  not 
certain  of  seeing  any  reward.  They  confess  that  they  felicitate 
the  bold  blasphemers  who  have  tested  the  ways  of  God  and  who 
find  themselves  none  the  worse  for  their  wickedness.*  The  an- 
swer of  the  prophets  to  this  temptation  was  the  assurance  that  the 
day  burning  as  an  oven  would  soon  come  when  they  should  tread 
the  unrighteous  under  foot.  They  were  to  wait  long  for  that  day 
and  die  without  the  sight.  Unknown  to  themselves,  perhaps, 
the  mainspring  of  their  action  was  the  conviction  that  it  must  be 
better  to  serve  Yahweh  even  in  adversity  than  to  dwell  in  the 
tents  of  wickedness.  Something  of  this  kind  was  in  the  prophet's 
mind  when  he  gave  them  this  word  of  comfort  :  "Yahweh  has 
attended  and  heard,  and  a  memorandum  has  been  written  down 
before  Him  for  those  who  fear  Him  and  who  think  on  His  name. 
They  shall  be  mine  own,  says  Yahweh  Sabaoth,  in  the  day  when 
I  act,  and  I  will  deal  gently  with  them  as  a  man  deals  with  an 
obedient  son."  The  hope  of  that  day  was  deferred  long  enough 
to  make  the  heart  sick,  but  the  thought  of  the  book  of  remem- 
brance stayed  up  the  sinking  spirit.  If  one  is  not  forgotten  of 
his  God,  he  may  rest  content. 

The  continued  existence  of  this  little  band  of  kindred  spirits — an 

1  Mai.  3  8-'°.  The  contrast  to  Amos's  scornful  treatment  of  the  tithes  (Amos, 
4  *)  will  occur  to  everyone.  Malachi,  it  may  be  remarked,  shows  no  ac- 
quaintance with  the  Priest-code.  The  tithes  he  has  in  mind  are  those  com- 
manded  in  Deuteronomy. 

«Mal.  3"-14;  cf.  w.  '••  ». 


THE  REBUILDING  OF  THE  TEMPLE  363 

Israel  within  Israel — is  the  most  important  fact  which  this  period 
has  to  show.  The  future  of  religion  lay  in  their  keeping.  The 
faith  and  hope  they  kept  alive  were  based  on  a  true  experience 
of  the  divine  presence.  The  traditions  of  the  fathers  were  no 
doubt  cherished  among  them,  and  for  the  most  part  they  rested 
in  the  thought  that  though  the  day  of  judgment  for  the  wicked 
was  postponed,  it  must  come  in  external  and  visible  form.  But 
from  this  circle  one  arose  to  protest  against  the  whole  doctrine  of 
the  divine  administration  of  the  world  as  it  had  been  formulated 
by  the  fathers.  Too  clear-eyed  to  rest  in  delusive  hopes,  he 
looked  at  things  as  they  are,  and  put  on  record  the  struggles  and 
doubts  which  many  were  passing  through,  but  were  not  able  to 
voice.  The  book  of  Job  was  the  result,  one  of  the  great  works  of 
the  human  spirit.  Such  a  work  could  be  the  product  only  of  a 
period  of  doubt  and  depression,  and  our  reason  for  dating  it  at 
this  time  is  that  it  emphasises  the  problems  which  became  acute 
in  this  period. 

What  was  said  in  our  discussion  of  Ezekiel  shows  how  the 
question  of  the  divine  justice  was  forced  upon  the  people  by  the 
experiences  of  the  exile.  How  Yahweh  could  punish  His  people 
and  yet  not  inflict  undeserved  suffering  upon  some  individuals 
who  were  faithful  to  Him  was  a  problem  as  difficult  as  it  was 
painful.  Ezekiel  cut  the  knot  by  the  strictness  of  his  logic. 
With  the  energy  of  a  determined  spirit  he  drew  the  necessary  in- 
ference from  his  doctrine  of  the  divine  nature.  Yahweh  is  just ; 
therefore  He  punishes  or  rewards  men  according  to  their  deserts 
— the  man  that  sins  shall  die,  the  man  that  does  righteously  shall 
live.  Such  is  the  simple  syllogism  which  he  spins  out  to  so  great  a 
length  that  we  see  he  is  bound  to  convince  himself  by  the  itera- 
tion. As  the  prophet  had  not  learned  to  extend  the  sphere  of 
the  divine  justice  beyond  the  present  life,  the  declaration  means 
that  the  wicked  are  punished  by  early  or  painful  physical  death, 
while  the  righteous  live  out  the  years  normal  to  humanity.  The 
simplicity  of  the  theory  commends  it  to  intense  but  narrow  nat- 
ures. Such  might  hold  it  fast — by  main  strength  of  will  and  by 
shutting  their  eyes  to  daily  experience.  But  the  more  reflective 
minds  could  not  be  blind  to  its  difficulties.  Especially  were  the 
experiences  of  the  century  that  had  passed  since  Ezekiel  calcu- 
lated to  shake  their  faith.  Does  the  theory  accord  with  the 
facts?  As  this  question  forced  itself  to  the  front,  and  as  the  facts 


364  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

were  more  closely  interrogated,  it  became  impossible  to  make 
the  facts  and  the  theory  agree. 

The  conclusion  being  invalidated,  the  premisses  also  are 
shaken.  We  must  then  give  up  the  belief  that  Yahweh  is  just — 
this  is  the  dreadful  thought  which  presented  itself  to  the  in- 
quirer. And  if  he  shrank  from  this,  the  problem  returned  to 
torment  him  again  and  again.  Israel  was  not  altogether  sinful ; 
why  had  it  been  so  long  scourged  by  the  Gentiles  ?  The  Gen- 
tiles were  not  more  righteous ;  why  should  they  be  allowed  to 
rage  without  hindrance?  The  remnant  of  Judah,  whether  in 
Babylon  or  in  Canaan,  had  turned  to  Yahweh  with  all  their 
heart — some  souls  among  them  at  least  dealt  justly  and  loved 
mercy  and  walked  humbly  with  their  God.  Why  should  these 
still  be  the  prey  of  the  oppressor  ? 

Writing  with  his  heart's  blood,  the  author  of  the  book  of  Job 
debates  rather  than  answers  questions  like  these.  He  puts  the 
problem  in  concrete  form,  but  takes  care  to  divest  it  of  all  ritual 
complications.  It  is  not  a  question  of  Israel's  prerogatives  or  of 
special  divine  revelation.  It  is  a  question  of  our  common  hu- 
manity— does  God  the  Creator  deal  with  His  creatures  on  any 
principle  that  we  can  understand  ?  The  question  is  stated  in  the 
narrative  of  Job,  a  man  upright  and  God-fearing  according  to 
the  patriarchal  standard.  The  story  had  apparently  been  known 
before.  Ezekiel,  at  any  rate,  names  Job *  as  one  of  three  men 
distinguished  for  their  righteousness,  probably  all  of  them  also 
examples  of  deliverance  in  calamity.  This  is  hardly  the  Job  of 
our  book,  who  is  famous  quite  as  much  for  his  misfortunes  as 
for  his  righteousness.  It  is  in  fact  the  combination  of  the  mis- 
fortunes and  the  righteousness  that  makes  the  tragedy. 

The  hero  of  the  book,  a  perfect  example  of  human  virtue,  is  a 
hero  of  tragedy.  After  seeming  to  prove  by  his  prosperity  that 
the  lot  of  man  accords  with  the  traditional  theory — the  righteous 
are  prospered — he  is  suddenly  plunged  into  the  deepest  affliction. 
His  property  is  swept  away  in  an  hour,  and  in  the  same  hour  his 
children  are  cut  down  in  the  flower  of  youth.  He  himself  is 
afflicted  with  a  loathsome  disease  whose  nature  leaves  him  no 
hope  of  life,  unless  a  lingering  death  extending  into  years  of 

1  Ezek.  i4Mi1*.  It  is  noticeable  that  Ezekiel  uses  the  three  men  to  sup- 
port  his  theory  of  strict  individual  justice — by  their  personal  righteousness 
they  should  deliver  themselves  but  no  one  else,  not  even  son  or  daughter. 


THE   REBUILDING  OF  THE  TEMPLE  365 

torture  may  be  called  life.     This   is  the   presentation   of  the 
problem. 

In  the  treatment  of  the  problem  three  separate  views  seem  to 
be  embodied — another  instance  of  the  composite  nature  of  He- 
brew literature.  Popular  tradition,  which  is  the  source  of  the 
story,1  could  not  be  content  without  poetic  justice.  Therefore 
we  find  the  epilogue  restoring  Job  to  health  and  wealth,  giving 
him  another  family  and  extending  his  life  to  patriarchal  length. 
It  is  evident  that  if  this  be  the  author's  mind  we  have  no  prob- 
lem. A  brief  time  of  privation  and  suffering  would  be  a  trifle 
when  balanced  against  an  additional  century  of  health  and  pros- 
perity. It  is  only  when  the  fact  of  suffering  becomes  the  lead- 
ing fact,  and  when  reasonable  hope  of  restoration  is  taken,  away, 
that  the  problem  becomes  acute. 

We  must  suppose  therefore  that  the  epilogue  is  added  or  re- 
tained in  deference  to  a  tradition  which  already  recounted  the 
restoration  of  the  sufferer.  It  is  not  inconsistent  with  this  that 
the  prologue  indicates  a  partial  solution  of  the  problem.  The 
question  is:  Why  does  God  afflict  the  righteous?  One  answer 
is  given  by  the  new  angelology  which  we  found  coming  into  view 
in  Zechariah.  In  that  book  we  saw  Joshua  arraigned  before  the 
heavenly  court  with  Satan  as  prosecutor ;  so  here  we  see  the 
same  court  convened,  but  as  a  court  of  inquiry  rather  than  as  a 
court  for  trial.  The  angels  appear  in  the  Presence  to  report  on 
the  condition  of  the  universe.  Among  them  appears  the  prose- 
cutor, whose  business  is  now  that  of  a  detective.  To  the  ques- 
tion whether  he  has  observed  Job,  the  upright,  he  replies  with  an 
insinuation  :  Job's  outward  integrity  cannot  be  denied,  but  it  is 
not  difficult  to  suppose  that  it  is  a  matter  of  selfish  calculation. 
When  Yahweh  rewards  virtue  with  prosperity,  mere  selfish  motives 
are  enough  to  produce  virtuous  conduct.  To  Satan's  declaration 
that  if  Job  should  lose  his  property,  his  piety  will  go  also, 
Yahweh  replies  by  giving  him  permission  to  make  the  experi- 
ment. The  test  is  applied  and  Job's  disinterestedness  is  trium- 
phantly established  against  this  charge.  But  Satan  takes  his  in- 
quisitorial office  seriously.  He  has  a  second  count  to  bring 
against  the  righteous  man.  Piety  may  be  dictated  by  fear  as  well 

1  This  is  most  distinctly  brought  out  by  Duhrn  in  his  commentary  (ffuner 
Handkommentar),  The  theory  is  discussed  »t  length  by  K.  Kautzsch, 
Das  Sogenannte  I'olksbuch  von  Hiob  (1900). 


366  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

as  by  desire.  Job  has  been  overawed  by  the  power  of  God  dis- 
played in  the  calamities  that  have  overtaken  him.  He  now  cringes 
before  the  hand  that  has  smitten,  fearing  that  it  will  be  lifted 
for  a  final  stroke.  But  (it  is  added)  if  the  hope  of  life  is  taken 
away  then  the  true  state  of  his  mind  will  appear — he  will  be  seen 
not  to  be  righteous  but  to  be  depraved,  and  he  will  blaspheme 
his  Maker  to  His  face.  This  test  also  is  applied ;  Job  is  smitten 
with  leprosy  in  its  most  malignant  form  so  that  he  must  despair 
of  life  and  has  nothing  to  fear  or  to  hope  from  Yahweh.  He 
stands  the  test  and  holds  fast  his  integrity. 

In  the  behaviour  of  Job  under  affliction  we  have  undoubtedly 
one  answer  to  our  problem.  The  writer  comforts  himself  with 
the  thought  that  if  we  could  see  all  that  goes  on  in  the  divine 
council  we  should  see  a  reason  for  much  that  is  now  obscure  to 
us  in  the  government  of  the  world.  Among  the  spiritual  exist- 
ences there,  as  among  men  here,  there  may  be  doubt  as  to  the 
reality  of  virtue — at  least  of  human  virtue.  To  prove  that  virtue 
is  more  than  selfishness  there  is  no  way  except  to  send  calamity 
upon  the  virtuous.  It  concerns  mankind  and  angels  to  be  con- 
vinced that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  disinterested  goodness. 
This  we  may  call  a  real  solution  of  the  problem. 

But  it  is  far  from  satisfying  the  author  of  the  poem.  He  seems, 
in  fact,  to  ignore  the  solution,  for  the  poetical  part  of  the  book 
makes  no  reference  to  Satan  or  to  the  desirability  of  testing  virtue 
by  calamity.  The  author's  eye  is  fixed  upon  the  sufferer  who  is 
ignorant  that  he  is  being  experimented  upon  in  the  interest  of 
truth.  The  struggles  of  the  soul  under  the  kni  fe  absorb  the  writer's 
attention.  The  tragedy  is  unfolded,  as  we  see  this  soul  wrestling 
with  the  thought  that,  though  innocent,  it  has  lost  its  God.  In 
the  dialogue  this  soul  (which  is  the  reflection  of  the  writer's  own 
soul)  reveals  itself  to  us — its  deepest  experiences,  its  yearnings 
and  gropings,  its  passionate  rejection  of  the  popular  theology. 
The  interlocutors  are  Job  and  his  three  friends.  These  men, 
representatives  of  tradition  and  philosophy,  come  ostensibly  to 
condole  with  him  on  his  misfortunes.  But  their  silence  is  elo- 
quent of  something  very  different  from  sympathy.  It  shows  that 
in  their  secret  thought  they  are  pronouncing  judgment  upon  the 
sufferer.  As  in  former  times  Job  had  concluded  from  a  man's 
calamity  that  he  had  by  sin  incurred  the  just  displeasure  of  God, 
so  these  uncomforting  comforters  are  attributing  to  Job  himselr 


THE  REBUILDING  OF  THE  TEMPLE  367 

wickedness  and  hypocrisy,  colossal  in  proportion  to  the  greatness 
of  his  calamity. 

It  is  impossible  for  us,  of  a  more  advanced  type  of  thought,  to 
realise  the  depth  of  the  misery  into  which  the  sufferer  is  thus 
plunged  and  which  causes  him  to  break  out  into  curses  against  the 
day  of  his  birth.  It  is  not  that  he  values  the  judgment  of  his 
friends ;  it  is  because  their  theory  has  been  his  own.  His  life's 
faith  is  suddenly  shown  to  be  untenable.  Where  he  had  thought 
he  could  stay  himself  on  God  he  found  a  void  beneath  his  feet 
and  felt  himself  falling  into  a  bottomless  abyss.  While  he  was 
in  prosperity  it  had  been  easy  for  him  to  believe  that  God  is  just 
and  is  a  rewarder  of  His  servants.  Now  that  faith  is  gone. 

It  is  gone  just  because  his  conscience  is  clear.  He  knows  with 
the  certainty  of  inner  conviction  that  he  is  not  the  flagrant  sinner 
who  alone  could  call  down  such  signal  punishment.  As  to  the 
opposite  conviction  of  the  friends  there  can  be  no  doubt,  though 
they  try  to  be  considerate  in  their  statements.  So  far  as  their 
convictions  will  allow  they  desire  to  spare  their  friend.  But  they 
have  no  doubt  that  this  suffering  is  a  punishment  for  sin.  They 
show  the  grounds  for  their  belief  in  the  traditions  of  the  ancients 
confirmed  by  their  own  observation.  They  claim  to  have  been 
taught  by  divine  revelation  concerning  the  divine  method  of 
dealing  with  men.  With  phrases  of  studied  mildness  they  invite 
Job  now  to  repent  of  his  sin,  and  they  even  promise  restoration 
to  health  and  prosperity  in  case  he  follows  this  advice. 

The  terrible  mockery  of  such  promises  to  a  man  in  his  con- 
dition only  increases  the  perplexity  and  the  despair  of  the  suf- 
ferer, further  aggravated  as  the  friends  proceed  to  make  direct 
charges  of  sin  against  him.  Turning  about  everywhither,  he 
finds  no  hope.  The  best  that  he  can  wish  for  is  annihilation. 
He  accuses  his  friends  of  failing  him  at  the  time  when  he  most 
needs  them.  He  describes  his  sufferings,  bodily  and  mental. 
At  last  in  desperation,  with  what  seems  to  them  effrontery,  he 
expostulates  with  God.  Why  should  he,  an  insignificant  crea- 
ture, be  watched  as  though  he  were  the  rebellious  ocean  or  the 
primeval  dragon  that  threatened  to  undo  the  work  of  creation? 
Would  it  not  be  more  worthy  of  God  to  forgive  human  failings, 
seeing  that  the  divine  dignity  cannot  be  injured  by  the  punj 
efforts  of  the  creature  ?  * 

'Job.  7"-". 


368  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

To  the  friends  this  is  but  the  raving  of  a  madman,  and  it  con- 
firms them  in  their  theory.  To  their  insistence  that  God  must 
be  just,  Job  now  gives  his  assent,  but  in  a  form  which  shows  that 
he  still  denies.  He  will  concede  their  position  if  might  makes 
right: 

"  Verily  I  know  that  it  is  so :  how  can  man  be  righteous  before  God  ? 

If  He  should  choose  to  bring  suit  against  him,  he  could  not  answer 
one  count  in  a  thousand. 

The  wise  in  mind  and  mighty  in  strength !  Who  could  oppose  Him 
and  come  forth  whole  ? 

Before  Him  who  moves  mountains  without  knowing  it,  and  over- 
turns them  in  His  wrath  ! " ' 

One  does  not  argue  with  the  master  of  a  hundred  legions.  But 
this  is  no  answer  to  the  main  question.  If  the  theory  of  the 
friends  comes  only  to  this,  that  God  is  always  in  the  right  be- 
cause He  has  the  power  to  crush  opposition,  then  there  is  no 
debate.  But  then,  too,  God  is  not  the  God  in  whom  Job  has 
trusted. 

This  is  the  anguish  of  the  situation.  The  God  of  justice  has 
disappeared  and  a  powerful  tyrant  alone  remains.  This  (Job 
thinks)  is  really  what  the  friends  mean.  Justice  is  not  what  they 
are  looking  for.  They  look  only  for  indications  of  the  tyrant's 
mood  and  then  manoeuvre  to  keep  on  His  side,  for  He  is  the 
strongest ;  just  as  the  sycophants  about  an  absolute  monarch  are 
ready  to  justify  his  most  cruel  or  most  oppressive  whims.  It 
still  remains  true  that  Job  is  innocent — this  he  will  protest  till 
his  last  breath.  And  he  could  prove  it  to  God  Himself  if 
only  they  could  meet  on  equal  terms,  as  man  meets  man  in  ar- 
gument. If  God  would  lay  aside  His  terrors,  if  there  were  an 
umpire  who  would  impartially  consider  the  evidence,  he  would 
rejoice  to  defend  his  case.  Even  as  it  is,  at  the  risk  of  offend- 
ing his  omnipotent  adversary  he  must  declare  his  innocence.  He 
will  not  lie— «ven  to  curry  favour  with  the  Almighty.  Hence 
the  protest  which  he  addresses  to  God.  The  right  of  the  crea- 
ture must  be  affirmed  even  if  the  affirmation  seems  to  be  a  de- 
fiance of  the  Creator.1 

It  is  clear  that  the  friends  with  their  stiff  dogmatism  cannot 

'Job,  9«. 

1  Read  chapters  10  and  13, 


THE   REBUILDING  OF  THE   TEMPLE  369 

comprehend  this  state  of  mind.  The  words  of  Job  are  to  them 
blasphemy,  and  only  strengthen  the  conviction  that  he  is  a  mon- 
strous sinner — a  hypocrite  as  well,  because  he  insists  that  he  is 
righteous.  They  reaffirm  their  doctrine  with  increasing  heat, 
until  at  last  they  accuse  him  to  his  face  of  crimes  for  which  there 
is  no  evidence  outside  the  exigencies  of  their  theory.  More  and 
more  distinctly  Job  sees  that  there  is  no  relief  for  him  in  their 
way  of  thinking.  Their  theology,  which  has  also  been  his  the- 
ology, is  hopelessly  bankrupt.  But  in  proportion  as  he  is  driven 
from  his  theology  he  is  driven  back  to  God.  He  has  no  other 
refuge,  and  his  heart  tells  him  that  there  is  a  refuge  here.  God 
must  be  just — not  in  the  sense  in  which  the  friends  have  declared, 
but  in  the  sense  in  which  the  heart  cries  out  for  justice.  This 
does  not  tell  him  why  he  is  afflicted  ;  that  is  a  mystery  which 
he  cannot  solve.  But  somewhere,  somehow,  God  will  disprove 
the  false  charges  brought  against  His  servant.  Long  after  his 
death,  it  may  be,  God  will  be  his  vindicator  and  will  bring 
the  true  state  of  the  case  to  light.  With  this  he  will  be  con- 
tent.1 

The  real  solution  of  the  problem  is  the  state  of  peace  attained 
by  the  believer  through  all  this  struggle.  It  is  not  an  intellectual 
solution  of  the  problem  ;  it  is  the  experience  of  a  soul.  What 
the  author  shows  us  is  a  man  thrown  into  the  darkness  of  de- 
spair by  God's  inexplicable  dealings  with  him.  He  loses  his 
faith  for  the  time  being,  but  he  comes  through  his  doubts  and 
finds  his  God  again.  In  a  way  this  is  a  justification  of  God's 
dealing  with  Job.  But  it  is  the  destruction  of  the  popular  the- 
ology, and  it  is  no  solution  of  the  problem  of  the  universe.  This 
the  author  goes  on  to  prove  by  the  mouth  of  Job  himself.  The 
fact  that  Job  is  able  to  rest  upon  God  does  not  mean  that  the 
friends  are  right  in  their  interpretation.  The  popular  theology  is 
false  in  asserting  that  this  world  is  administered  on  the  scheme 

1  The  celebrated  passage,  Job,  ig**-*7,  is  so  overlaid  with  Christian  asso- 
ciations that  we  find  difficulty  in  apprehending  its  real  meaning.  The  per- 
sistence with  which,  up  to  this  point,  Job  has  denied  the  reality  of  reward 
or  punishment  beyond  the  grave  makes  it  certain  that  he  does  not  suddenly 
adopt  such  a  theory  here.  What  Job  actually  says  is  this :  his  confidence 
in  God  gives  assurance  that  his  vindication  will  come,  and  that  he  will  be 
permitted  to  know  it.  In  the  dark  regions  of  Sheol  a  momentary  vision 
may  be  vouchsafed  him — this  is  the  most  that  he  can  hope  for,  but  with  this 
he  will  be  satisfied. 


37O  OLD    TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

of  rewards  and  punishments.  Observation  of  the  facts  about  us 
shows  not  only  that  the  righteous  suffer  but  that  the  wicked  pros- 
per. So  far  is  it  from  being  true  that  the  wicked  are  snatched 
away  by  an  untimely  death,  that  we  might  put  it  just  the  other 
way — the  wicked  oppressors  grow  old  in  power.  They  grow  in 
power  and  in  wickedness,  and  when  at  last  they  are  taken  away 
it  is  by  a  painless  death.  The  problem  stands  out  much  more 
boldly  than  Job  had  ever  thought,  until  he  turned  his  attention 
to  the  facts.  And  it  is  insoluble.  To  the  question,  "  On  what 
principles  then  is  the  world  governed?  "  no  answer  can  be  given. 
This  is  our  author's  deliberate  conclusion.  Yet  faith  is  not  al- 
together taken  away  from  us.  As  we  look  at  the  wonderful 
works  of  God  in  nature  we  see  that  perfect  wisdom  is  at  work. 
We  can  rest  in  the  conclusion  that  He  who  is  able  to  carry  on 
such  a  wonderful  scheme  of  things  will  also  be  able  to  give  a 
reason  for  His  dealings  with  men.  His  ways  are  unsearchable; 
we  may  trust  that  they  are  true  and  right  nevertheless.1 

It  is  doubtful  whether  this  treatment  of  the  problem  of  the 
divine  government  was  understood  by  the  contemporaries  of  the 
author.  The  book  was  too  profound  for  the  average  mind — 
nor  has  it  been  adequately  apprehended  in  any  age.  The  epi- 
logue has  probably  saved  it  from  perishing  by  neglect.  The 
author's  answer  to  the  problem  of  history  is  one  in  which  the 
believing  mind  could  not  rest.  From  the  same  circle  of  thought- 
ful minds,  and  at  about  the  same  time,  came  another  answer  in 
the  brilliant  and  devout  poem  which  we  now  read  as  the  second 
part  of  the  book  of  Isaiah. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  exile  the  suffering  of  Israel  could  be 
accounted  for  on  the  ground  that  the  people  were  punished  for 
their  sins.  The  longer  the  exile  endured  the  more  difficult  it 
was  to  accept  this  explanation.  Continued  suffering  would  then 
imply  that  Israel  was  much  worse  than  the  Gentiles,  for  Israel  was 
afflicted  while  they  escaped.  But  this  could  not  be  seriously 
held.  The  author  of  the  book  of  Job  had  abstracted  the  ques- 
tion from  its  particular  national  colouring  and  discussed  it  as  an 
ethical  question  pure  and  simple,  reaching  a  non  liquet.  The 
author  of  the  poem  which  now  engages  our  attention  fixed  his 

1  That  this  is  the  purpose  of  the  chapters  (38  and  39)  which  describe  the 
wonders  of  nature  must  be  manifest.     The  speeches  of  Elihu  (32-37)  ar« 
a  later  insertion  in  the  book  and  add  nothing  to  the  discussion. 


THE   REBUILDING  OF  THE  TEMPLE  371 

eye  on  the  concrete  problem.  Israel  is  personified  by  him,  and 
is  constantly  before  his  mind.  He  is  not  content  with  one  form 
of  the  figure.  He  realises  that  Israel  may  be  represented  by  the 
half-rebuilt  ruins  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  still  desolate  cities  of 
Judah.  These  he  addresses  with  words  of  encouragement  and 
comfort — Zion  is  the  forlorn  and  sorrowing  wife  of  Yahweh 
mourning  the  absence  of  her  husband ;  and  she  is  comforted 
by  the  promise  of  His  speedy  return.  But  Israel  is  also  the 
nation  which  went  into  captivity,  and  which  still  in  large  part 
sojourns  in  the  East.  This  Israel,  in  the  author's  view,  has  a 
great  mission  in  the  world.  It  is  personified  as  the  Servant  of 
Yahweh,  chosen  by  Him  and  called  to  the  work  of  a  prophet. 
This  Servant,  the  most  striking  ideal  figure  of  the  Old  Testament, 
is  also  comforted  and  encouraged.  He  is  introduced  speaking  like 
a  prophet,  conscious  of  his  high  mission,  reciting  the  word  of 
His  God.  Israel  the  prophet  of  Yahweh  to  the  nations — this  is 
the  author's  solution  of  the  problem  of  history.1 

More  fully  than  anyone  who  has  preceded  him,  our  author 
affirms  Yahweh  to  be  the  only  God,  the  God  of  the  whole 
earth.  With  all  the  ardour  of  a  passionate  nature,  this  is  de- 
clared again  and  again.  Yahweh  is  the  Creator  of  the  ends  of 
the  earth ;  He  makes  peace  and  creates  evil ;  He  takes  up  the 
isles  as  a  mote ;  He  spreads  out  the  heavens  as  a  canopy  ;  He 
marshals  the  constellations  in  their  order,  and  for  fear  of  Him 
every  star  keeps  its  appointed  place  in  the  ranks.1  The  gods  of 
the  nations  are,  on  the  other  hand,  nothing  but  idols.  They  are 
sticks  and  stones,  behind  which  is  no  spiritual  power  of  any  kind. 
Scorn  and  contempt  for  these  manufactured  articles  breathe 
in  every  passage  where  they  are  mentioned.  The  process  by 

1  This  is  not  the  place  to  argue  the  complex  critical  problems  which  clus- 
ter around  the  great  poem  which  we  call  Deutero-Isaiah  (Is.  40-66).  A 
whole  library  has  been  written  on  the  subject,  and  the  discussion  is  still 
going  on.  The  reader  will  find  the  main  points  discussed  in  the  recent  com- 
mentaries on  Isaiah,  in  the  articles  of  the  recent  Bible  Dictionaries  and  in 
various  monographs,  some  of  which  will  be  cited  below.  My  own  view  is 
that  the  work  is  by  a  single  author,  though  not  all  written  at  one  time.  This 
author  lived  some  time  after  the  date  of  Cyrus,  and  the  references  to  that  king 
in  44  and  45  are  later  insertions.  He  lived,  however,  in  the  Persian  period. 
The  text  has  suffered  some  in  transmission  and  must  be  cleared  of  some 
minori  nterpolations.  I  am  indebted  to  Professor  C.  C.  Torrey  for  light  on 
tome  points  which  were  to  me  obscure. 

*  Numerous  references  might  be  given — note  especially  chapter  40, 


372  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

which  they  come  into  being  is  enough  to  show  their  nothing- 
ness.    Of  the  workmen  in  the  idol  shops  it  is  said  : 

"  One  helps  the  other,  and  says  to  his  fellow  :  Be  of  good  courage ! 
So  the  craftsman  encourages  the  goldsmith  ;  he  who  smoothes  with 

the  hammer  him  who  smites  the  anvil, 
Saying  of  the  soldering  :  It  is  good  ;  and  he  fastens  it  with  nails."  * 

The  absurdity  of  a  god  that  must  be  nailed  up  in  order  not  to 
topple  over  is  patent ;  and  so  is  the  folly  of  the  man  who  takes  a 
piece  of  timber,  makes  a  fire  with  one  half  and  shapes  the  other 
into  an  object  of  worship.  Such  gods  are  nothing — a  stick  of 
wood  is  a  stick  of  wood  and  nothing  more.  Their  nothingness 
is  indicated  further  by  their  weakness — they  cannot  do  anything, 
either  good  or  bad.  Yahweh,  speaking  by  the  mouth  of  his 
prophet,  challenges  them  on  this  head — let  them  do  something 
to  show  their  power  and  men  will  believe  in  them.  The  chal- 
lenge results  in  a  demonstration  of  their  impotence.  And  the 
evidence  thus  given  will  be  confirmed  in  the  near  future  by  the 
fate  that  will  overtake  them.  The  crisis  is  not  far  away  in  which 
Bel  and  Nebo  will  be  involved  in  the  ruin  of  their  city.  In  the 
flight  of  their  worshippers  these  gods  will  prove  a  hindrance 
rather  than  a  help — loading  down  the  jaded  beasts  which  might 
more  profitably  carry  something  of  use  for  their  masters.1 

Yahweh  is  the  God  of  history.  He  knows  the  end  from  the 
beginning,  directs  the  movements  of  the  nations,  works  out  His 
plans  by  means  of  them.  This  He  shows  by  the  fact  that  to 
His  prophets  He  has  revealed  things  to  come.  The  diviners  and 
astrologers,  prophets  of  the  false  gods  we  may  call  them,  have  no 
knowledge  of  the  signs  of  the  times.  Yahweh's  challenge  to  the 
other  gods  turns  upon  this.  They  are  invited  to  tell  how  the 
former  things  were  foretold,  or  else  to  announce  what  is  still  in 
the  future.  Yahweh  by  His  movements  throws  all  their  supposed 
revelations  into  confusion.* 

1  Isaiah,  41  •• T.  The  verses  have  possibly  been  displaced  from  their  original 
context ;  cf.  Cheyne,  Introduction  to  the  Book  of  Isaiah,  p.  299,  and  his  edi- 
tion in  Haupt,  Sacred  Books  of  the  Old  Testament. 

1 1bid. ,  46  *•* .  The  contrast  between  Bel  and  Nebo  who  need  to  be  car- 
ried and  Yahweh  who  has  carried  His  people  from  their  birth  will  impress 
the  most  careless  reader. 

1  Ibid.,  41 1'-!1,  and  notice  the  confusion  of  the  Babylonian  astrologers  in 
471UU. 


THE   REBUILDING   OF  THE  TEMPLE  373 

This  God  of  history  is  in  some  peculiar  sense  the  God  of  Is- 
rael. His  choice  of  Israel  must  be  the  key  to  history.  As  to 
the  fact  of  the  choice  we  are  not  left  in  doubt — it  is  affirmed  again 
and  again ;  and  it  is  set  forth  under  figures  familiar  to  us  from 
our  study  of  the  older  prophets,  though  it  is  nowhere  so  tenderly 
described  as  here.  Yahweh  is  Israel's  husband.  Zion  is  com- 
pared to  a  forsaken  wife,  who  despairs  of  being  received  again  to 
the  affections  which  she  has  forfeited.  But  she  is  assured  that  so 
far  from  being  forgotten  she  is  in  perpetual  remembrance — her 
walls  are  graven  on  the  palms  of  His  hands.  In  her  little  faith, 
she  refuses  to  believe  that  the  prey  can  be  taken  from  the  oppres- 
sor. In  answer  she  is  pointed  to  the  incomparable  power  of  her 
Lord  and  her  Redeemer.1 

The  word  which  we  translate  Redeemer  is  a  favourite  word 
with  our  author  to  indicate  the  closeness  of  the  bond  between 
Yahweh  and  Israel.1  It  denotes  the  next  of  kin  upon  whom  in 
tribal  society  all  social  duties  devolve.  He  is  vindicator  of  jus- 
tice— when  a  man  is  slain  the  next  of  kin  avenges  him.  He  is 
helper  in  misfortune,  nourishes  in  famine,  redeems  from  captivity, 
takes  upon  him  all  the  interests  of  his  kinsman.  Yahweh  is  Israel's 
next  of  kin,  Redeemer,  Vindicator,  Helper.  It  follows  that 
there  is  a  coming  salvation.  Israel's  redemption  is  nigh.  His 
scattered  ones  will  be  brought  back.  Zion  will  be  rebuilt  in 
transcendent  beauty.  Her  sons  shall  come  from  far  and  her 
daughters  be  nourished  at  her  side.  Yahweh  Himself  will  head 
the  returning  train,  leading  them  over  the  desert  as  the  shepherd 
leads  his  flock. 

To  what  purpose  then  is  all  the  suffering  through  which  Israel 
has  gone  ?  This  suffering  is  (as  we  have  seen)  more  than  was 
required  by  the  divine  justice.  The  author,  in  fact,  is  so  bold  as 
to  say  that  Zion  has  received  of  Yahweh's  hand  double  for  all 
her  sins.  It  is  in  answer  to  this  question  that  our  author  shows  a 
profound  philosophy  as  well  as  a  living  faith.  God's  choice  of 
Israel  is  not  for  Israel's  sake  alone.  The  great  future  that  opens 
out  before  him  is  a  future  for  the  whole  earth.  All  nations  are 
to  receive  the  blessing  of  the  knowledge  of  Yahweh,  which  hitherto 
has  been  confined  to  Israel.  Distant  peoples  shall  come  to  Israel 
with  the  conviction  :  "  Only  in  thee  is  God,  and  beside  there  is 

1  Note  especially  the  beautiful  passage,  49  M — 50*. 

*  The  Hebrew  is  go" el,  for  which  we  have  no  good  equivalent  in  English, 


374  OLD    TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

none,  no  Godhead  at  all."  To  Him  every  knee  shall  bow  and 
every  tongue  shall  swear. l  This  universality  of  the  true  religion 
is  the  end  to  be  attained  by  Yahweh's  choice  of  Israel,  and 
Israel's  suffering  is  incident  to  his  mission  to  the  nations.  He 
suffers  not  only  for  his  own  sins,  but  for  the  sins  of  others. 

The  theory  of  vicarious  suffering  is  not  so  remote  from  ancient 
thought  as  it  is  from  the  thought  of  our  own  day — which,  indeed, 
revolts  from  it.  In  a  society  where  the  clan  is  held  responsible 
for  the  acts  of  each  of  its  members  it  must  often  happen  that  the 
innocent  suffer  for  the  guilty.  In  any  society  the  cases  are  not 
few  where  the  guilt  of  one  involves  many  in  suffering.  The 
solidarity  of  the  social  organism  makes  this  inevitable.  And  the 
result  is  often  to  bring  to  view  conspicuous  instances  of  suffering 
on  the  part  of  those  who  are  conspicuously  innocent.  The  high- 
est instances  of  virtue  are  found  where  men  voluntarily  take  upon 
themselves  to  suffer  in  order  that  others  may  be  spared.  Thus  a 
Moses  offers  to  be  blotted  out  of  the  book  of  God,  hoping  there- 
by to  secure  the  forgiveness  of  his  people.  So  in  the  discharge 
of  his  mission  many  a  prophet  had  undergone  suffering  in  order 
to  bring  his  people  to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth. 

Israel,  now,  is  a  prophet-nation  standing  to  the  nations  in  the 
same  relation  as  that  which  exists  between  the  individual  prophet 
and  his  hearers.  This  is  the  reason  for  Yahweh's  choice — the 
choice  is  a  call  to  make  Him  known  to  all  the  world.  Israel  is 
introduced  to  us  declaring  this  to  be  his  mission  : 

"  Hearken  ye  far  countries  unto  me,  and  listen  ye  distant 

peoples, 
Yahweh  has  called  me  from  the  womb,  from  my  mother's 

lap  has  He  celebrated  my  name  ; 
He  made  my  mouth  like  a  sharp  sword,  in  the  shadow  of 

His  hand  He  hid  me  ; 

He  made  me  a  polished  shaft,  in  His  quiver  He  stored  me. 
He  said  to  me  :  Thou  art  my  servant,  Israel,  in  whom  I 

will  glorify  myself. 


But  now  Yahweh  says — He  who  formed  me  from  the 
womb  to  be  a  servant  to  Him  : 

1  Isaiah,  45  "•  "•  "• M,  and  notice  the  passages  to  be  cited  in  the  immediate 
•equel. 


THE   REBUILDING   OF   THE   TEMPLE  375 

It  is  too  light  a  thing  to  raise  up  the  tribes  of  Jacob  and 

to  restore  the  preserved  of  Israel ; 
I  set  thee  as  a  light  of  the  nations,  that  my  deliverance 

may  go  to  the  ends  of  the  earth."  l 

And  as  Israel  avows  this  to  be  his  mission  so  Yahweh  testifies 
concerning  His  purposes :  "  Thou  too  shalt  call  nations  that  thou 
knowest  not  and  peoples  that  have  not  known  thee  shall  run  unto 
thee." l  The  substance  of  Israel's  message  is  indicated  where  Yah- 
weh contrasts  His  people  with  the  devotees  of  the  false  gods : 
"  You  are  my  witnesses  .  .  .  that  you  may  acknowledge 
and  believe  me  and  discern  that  I  am  He ;  before  me  was  no  god 
formed,  nor  after  me  shall  there  be  any." 

Where  this  is  the  work  of  the  Servant  it  must  be  that  persecu- 
tion and  suffering  will  follow.  The  course  of  history  is  a  con- 
flict between  Yahweh  and  the  other  gods.  The  partisans  of 
these  will  not  spare  His  witness.  So  Israel  realises  as  he  describes 
his  present  oppression  : 

"  The  Lord  Yahweh  has  given  me  the  speech  of  the  eloquent ; 
That  I  may  know  how  to  revive  the  weary  ; 
In  the  morning  He  wakens  my  ear  that  I  may  hearken  as  His 

disciple 

And  I  have  not  been  rebellious  or  turned  back. 
My  back  I  gave  to  the  smiters,  and  my  cheeks  to  those  who 

plucked  out  the  beard, 
I  hid  not  my  face  from  insult  and  spitting."* 

But  the  time  is  not  far  distant  when  the  nations  themselves  will 
realise  that  the  sufferer  has  suffered  as  the  result  of  his  faithfulness 
to  his  mission,  and  that  therefore  it  was  for  their  sake.  This 
realisation  passes  over  into  the  public  confession  of  the  vicarious- 

1  Isaiah,  49  *"*.  I  have  abbreviated  the  passage  so  as  to  bring  out  the  main 
thought.  The  passage  is  thoroughly  discussed  by  Giesebrecht,  Dtr  Knecht 
JaAve't  (1902).  p.  28  ff. 

1  Ibid.,  55  '.  The  comparison  of  Israel  to  David,  whose  work  was  to  unite 
the  tribes  in  a  single  state,  is  well  explained  by  Cheyne  :  "  David's  appointed 
work  could  only  be  effected  by  a  witness  or  preacher  of  the  truth,  and  this 
witness  or  preacher  was  to  be  (as  this  prophetic  writer  knows)  the  regener- 
ated people  of  Israel." — Isaiah  (English  translation)  in  Sacred  Books  of  the 
Old  Testament,  p.  187. 

1  Ibid.,  50*-*.  Compare  Yahweh's  own  description  of  His  servant  in 
42  '-*  quoted  below. 


OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

ness  of  his  suffering.  In  the  touching  chapter  which  has  been 
to  countless  generations  a  description  of  the  suffering  Saviour, l 
the  nations  are  introduced  avowing  their  discovery.  That  which 
had  not  been  told  them  now  they  see,  that  which  they  had  not 
heard  they  now  perceive  : 

"  Who  could  believe  the  report  which  came  to  us  ? 
And  to  whom  was  the  arm  of  Yahweh  revealed  ? 

He  grew  up  before  us  as  a  sapling ;  * 

And  like  a  sprout  from  dry  soil. 

He  had  no  beauty  that  we  should  look  upon  him, 

And  no  comeliness  that  we  should  delight  in  him. 

Despised  was  he  and  forsaken  of  men, 
A  man  of  sorrows  and  acquainted  with  sickness ; 
Like  one  from  whom  men  hide  the  face, 
Despised,  and  we  esteemed  him  not. 

But  it  was  our  sicknesses  that  he  bore 
And  our  sorrows  he  took  upon  himself, 
While  we  thought  him  stricken, 
Smitten  of  God  and  humiliated. 

But  he  was  pierced  for  our  rebellions, 

Crushed  for  our  iniquities. 

The  chastisement  that  brought  us  healing  was  on  him, 

And  recovery  came  to  us  through  his  wounds. 

All  we  like  sheep  had  gone  astray, 
We  had  turned  every  one  to  his  own  way, 
While  Yahweh  made  to  light  upon  him 
The  guilt  of  us  all."' 

It  cannot  be  that  this  self-sacrifice  will  be  unnoticed  by  Yah- 
weh. There  must  be  a  future  for  this  Servant  of  Yahweh — he 
shall  see  a  seed,  he  shall  prolong  his  days  and  the  good  pleasure 
of  Yahweh  shall  prosper  at  his  hands.  His  great  mission  will  be 
accomplished,  so  that  all  nations  will  see  the  salvation  of  God. 

1  Chapter  53.  The  right  to  apply  the  description  to  Christ  comes  not  from 
the  minute  details  of  prediction,  but  from  the  recognition  of  Him  as  the  true 
fulnller  of  Israel's  prophetic  mission. 

*  A  sickly  spindling  plant  is  what  is  meant. 

1  Isaiah,  53  '-•.     Cf .  the  discussion  in  Giesebrecht  Knecht  Jahvft. 


THE   REBUILDING  OF   THE   TEMPLE  377 

And  this  glorious  work  presents  itself  in  part  as  a  conquest.  The 
opposing  powers  will  be  crushed  before  the  triumphant  hero — 
Yahweh  will  rouse  the  mighty  one  from  the  East,  will  give  peo- 
ples into  his  power  and  strike  terror  into  kings.1  But  more  in 
accord  with  the  prophet's  ideal  is  the  gentle  work  of  persuasion 
by  which  the  Word  will  be  commended  to  all  mankind.  The 
messenger  of  Yahweh  is  not  to  strive  or  cry  or  make  his  voice 
heard  in  the  streets  : 

"  A  bruised  reed  he  will  not  break 
Nor  will  he  quench  a  dimly  burning  wick. 
Faithfully  will  he  set  forth  righteousness  ; 
He  will  not  grow  dim  nor  be  crushed 
Till  he  have  set  righteousness  in  the  earth, 
And  for  his  instruction  the  far  countries  wait."* 

That  the  kingdom  of  God  is  to  be  advanced  by  gentle  measures, 
that  present  humiliation  is  the  gateway  to  future  exaltation,  that 
the  true  believer  has  a  mission  to  comfort  the  lowly  and  to  bind 
up  the  wounds  of  those  who  are  afflicted — these  are  the  abiding 
truths  of  religion  which  were  put  into  enduring  form  by  our 
writer. 

But  the  contrast  between  the  ideal  and  the  actual  brings  a 
sharp  pain  to  such  believers.  Firm  as  the  conviction  may  be 
that  Israel  is  the  chosen  Servant  of  Yahweh  destined  to  this 
great  work,  the  present  reality  forces  itself  upon  the  attention. 
In  the  midst  of  triumphant  promise  and  even  in  the  exulting  ex- 
hortation to  Zion  to  rise  to  her  great  mission,  we  find  the  com- 
plaint that  the  actual  Israel  falls  far  short  of  his  calling.  Not 
only  is  it  a  people  robbed  and  plundered,  it  is  a  people  wilfully 
blind  and  deaf.  They  have  not  sought  Yahweh  with  their  whole 
heart — rather  have  they  burdened  Him  with  their  iniquities. 
Within  the  community  there  is  a  sharp  distinction  between  those 
who  serve  God  and  those  who  forget  Him.  The  official  class  (it 
is  the  old  complaint  of  the  prophets)  who  ought  to  be  the  pro- 
tectors and  watchmen  of  the  people  are  unfaithful  to  their  duty — 

1  Isaiah,  41  1"t.  That  Israel  is  intended  is  plain  from  v.15,  where  Israel  is 
promised  that  he  shall  be  a  powerful  threshing-sledge  to  crush  down  all  op. 
position.  As  the  tradition  arose  which  made  Cyrus  the  foster-father  of  the 
restoration,  the  passage  was  applied  to  him,  and  finally  his  name  was  in- 
serted in  44",  45  '. 

*Ibid.,  43,  '-«  and  cf.  61  »-*. 


378  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

dumb  dogs  that  do  not  protect  the  flock.1  As  in  the  picture 
drawn  by  Malachi,  the  righteous  are  poor,  and  the  victims  of 
rapacious  nobles.  So  we  find  it  again  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah. 
The  present  author  finds  a  consolation  in  their  early  death;  they 
are  taken  away  from  the  wickedness  of  the  time. 

And,  as  we  are  told  also  by  Malachi,  a  considerable  section  of 
the  people  is  still  devoted  to  idols.  The  secret  cults  which 
flourished  in  the  last  days  of  Jerusalem  (Ezekiel  is  the  witness) 
have  vegetated  on  among  the  people  of  the  district.  It  is  not 
the  gods  of  Babylon  or  newer  oriental  deities  that  seduce  their 
allegiance,  but  they  anoint  themselves  for  the  Moloch  (Melech, 
the  king)  whom  their  ancestors  identified  with  Yahweh.  They 
spread  a  table  for  Fortune  and  pour  libations  to  Destiny — 
ancient  divinities  of  Syria.  They  tarry  in  sepulchral  chambers 
and  lodge  in  secret  places  to  perform  rites  of  worship  to  the  de- 
ceased, and  to  receive  revelations  from  them  in  dreams.  The 
ancient  high-places  retained  something  of  their  sanctity  and  at 
one  of  them  (Gerizim  possibly)  men  were  planning  to  build  a 
temple  to  rival  that  on  Zion.  All  this  arouses  the  scorn  of  our 
prophet  and  he  denounces  it  in  no  measured  terms.1 

Nor  was  all  well  even  with  those  who  had  not  erred  in  this 
way.  The  ritualistic  tendency  to  externalism  was  showing 
itself  among  those  who  were  zealous  for  Yahweh.  These  were 
religious  after  their  fashion — they  bowed  themselves  low  at  the 
customary  fasts,  and  put  on  sackcloth  and  ashes  ;  they  mortified 
themselves,  perhaps  even  to  castigation.  But  our  prophet  points 
out  that  this  is  not  religion.  "  Is  not  this  the  fast  that  I  choose, 
says  Yahweh  :  To  loose  the  fetters  of"  injustice ;  to  untie  the 
bonds  of  violence ;  to  set  at  liberty  those  who  are  crushed;  to 
break  asunder  every  yoke  ?  Is  it  not  to  break  thy  bread  to  the 
hungry  and  to  bring  the  homeless  into  thy  house ;  when  thou 
seest  the  naked  to  cover  him  and  not  to  hide  thyself  from  thine 
own  flesh?"8  And  with  this  spiritual  conception  of  religion 

1  Isaiah,  56*.  The  present  tendency  to  ascribe  Isaiah,  56-66  to  a  Trito- 
Isaiah  is  illustrated  by  Duhm  in  his  commentary,  Cheynei  n  his  Introduction 
and  in  his  text  (Sacred  Books  of  the  Old  Testament).  Cf.  also  Gressmann, 
Ueber  die  in  Jes.  36-66  vorausgesettten  Zeitgeschl.  Verhallnisse  (1899),  and 
Lit  t  man  n,  Ueber  die  A  bfa  ssingszeit  de  s  Tritojesaia  (1899). 

*  Notice  56  *-"  where  the  language  is  in  part  borrowed  from  the  older 
prophets  ;  also  65  '-",  66  '-*. 

1  Isaiah,  58  6f.    I  have  followed  Cheyne's  translation  with  slight  variations 


THE   REBUILDING   OF   THE  TEMPLE  379 

goes  a  welcome  to  those  outside  the  family  of  Israel  who  wish  to 
join  the  communion  of  believers:  "As  for  the  strangers  who 
join  themselves  to  Yahweh  to  serve  Him  and  to  love  His  name, 
every  one  that  keeps  the  Sabbath  and  takes  fast  hold  of  my  cov- 
enant, I  will  bring  them  to  my  sacred  mountain  and  will  make 
them  rejoice  in  my  house  of  prayer ;  their  offerings  and  their 
sacrifices  shall  be  accepted  on  my  altar — for  my  house  shall  be 
called  a  house  of  prayer  for  all  nations."  l 

And  so  we  come  back  to  the  vision  of  the  universal  reign  of 
Yahweh.  But  this  does  not  come  by  the  efforts  of  men.  Yahweh 
Himself  must  come  and  redeem  His  people.  He  has  looked  for 
human  instruments  but  has  not  found  them.  Now  He  will 
intervene  in  His  own  person.  The  prophet  has  a  vision  which 
has  become  part  of  the  apocalyptic  expectation  for  later  times. 
In  it  he  sees  Yahweh  in  blood-stained  garments  marching  tri- 
umphantly over  all  who  oppose,  treading  them  as  the  vintner 
treads  the  grapes  ;  the  day  of  vengeance  is  in  His  heart  and 
the  day  of  redemption  has  come.*  But  to  do  the  writer  jus- 
tice we  must  add  to  this  warlike  picture  the  splendid  de- 
scription of  the  renewed  Jerusalem.  In  language  which  the 
New  Testament  has  adopted  and  passed  on  to  the  ages,  the 
prophet  exhorts  the  renewed  and  purified  Zion  to  clothe  herself 
like  a  bride  on  the  wedding  day.  Instead  of  being  forsaken  and 
desolate,  Jerusalem  is  to  become  the  metropolis  of  the  world. 
Yahweh  will  take  up  His  residence  in  her,  and  His  presence  will 
enable  her  to  dispense  with  sun  and  moon.  The  people  are  to 
become  all  righteous  and  the  reign  of  God  on  earth  is  to  begin.* 

A  close  parallel  to  this  vision  is  found  in  a  passage  now  ap- 
pended to  the  earlier  collection  of  Isaiah's  prophecies.4  Here 
we  find  the  bitterness  which  the  postexilic  Jewish  community 
felt  toward  Edom  expressed  without  reserve.  The  vengeance 

'Isaiah,  56*-*  ;  cf.  66":  "all  flesh  shall  come  to  worship  before  me, 
says  Yahweh." 

1  Ibid.,  63  l~*.  It  does  not  appear  why  the  redeemer  should  come  from 
Edom,  and  the  text  of  v.1  should  probably  be  corrected  with  Lagarde  and 
Duhm  so  as  to  read  :  Who  is  this  who  comes  in  red  apparel  with  garments 
stained  like  the  vintner  ? 

'Chapter  61.  The  identity  of  the  point  of  view  in  these  chapters  and 
in  chapters  40-55  is  evident.  It  is  unnecessary  therefore  to  posit  a  Trito- 
Isaiah  ;  but  it  is  necessary  to  bring  the  whole  composition  to  the  later  date. 

*  Isaiah,  34  and  35. 


380  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

which  Yahweh  is  about  to  take  upon  all  nations  will  find  its 
chief  object  in  Edom  :  "  For  Yahweh  has  a  sacrifice  in  Bozrah, 
and  a  great  slaughter  in  the  land  of  Edom. ' '  After  this  day  of 
reprisal  for  Zion,  the  land  of  Edom  will  become  a  desert  in- 
habited only  by  jackals,  ostriches,  and  hyenas.  In  contrast  with 
this  will  be  the  lot  of  Israel,  whose  waste  lands  shall  be  made  to 
blossom  like  the  rose.  To  this  land  of  Israel  a  way  will  be 
opened  on  which  the  unclean  shall  not  walk  : 

"  No  lion  shall  be  there, 

No  violent  beast  shall  come  up  thither  ; 
But  thereon  the  redeemed  will  walk 
And  Yahweh's  freed  ones  will  return. 

They  will  come  to  Zion  with  exultation 
And  with  everlasting  joy  upon  their  head  ; 
Gladness  and  joy  will  overtake  them, 
Sorrow  and  sighing  will  flee  away." 

The  similarity  to  what  has  been  quoted  above  will  be  evident. 
And  the  fact  most  prominent  in  the  thought  of  both  authors  is 
the  scattered  condition  of  the  people  of  Yahweh.  Their  hope 
for  the  future  is  hope  of  a  restoration.  Jerusalem  is  to  become 
the  centre  to  which  the  sons  of  Judah  will  return  from  the  far 
lands. 

The  true  significance  of  postexilic  Israel  is  seen  in  the  hopes  that 
it  cherished.  It  was  remarked  above  that  the  history  of  the  nation 
would  have  come  to  an  end  at  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  had  it  not 
been  for  the  little  band  of  exiles  in  Babylon.  l  Since  then  we 
have  considered  the  story  of  the  return  and  have  found  no  evi- 
dence that  any  large  number  of  Babylonian  Jews  came  back  to 
Judah.  It  might  seem,  in  view  of  this  fact,  as  though  we  had 
overrated  the  importance  of  the  exiles.  But  this  is  not  the  case. 
All  the  evidence  goes  to  show  that  the  moral  strength  of  the 
people  was  sustained  by  the  Babylonian  Jews.  After  more  than 
a  hundred  years  of  Persian  domination  there  was,  indeed,  a  little 
community  clustered  about  the  Temple  on  Zion.  But  they  were 
poor,  disheartened,  the  prey  of  designing  neighbours,  and  divided 
among  themselves.  Even  the  few  who  had  learned  that  Yahweh 
makes  His  home  with  the  humble  and  contrite  were  upheld, 
more  than  they  realised,  by  the  assurance  that  Yahweh  had  a 
•Above,  p.  299. 


THE   REBUILDING   OF  THE   TEMPLE  381 

people  in  the  far  East,  that  He  was  keeping  them  separate  from 
the  Gentiles,  and  that  in  His  own  time  He  would  bring  them 
back  with  joy  and  gladness.  In  this  faith  they  felt  themselves 
one  with  those  distant  brothers.  The  faith  and  the  sense  of  unity 
was  kept  alive  by  messages  and  tokens  of  affection.  Although 
there  had  been  no  general  return,  we  know  that  as  early  as  the 
time  of  Zechariah  a  few  pilgrims  had  come  with  offerings  of  gold 
and  silver  for  the  sanctuary.  As  the  community  of  Jews  in 
Babylon  throve  we  must  suppose  that  such  offerings  became  more 
frequent.  The  whole  influence  of  Ezekiel  had  been  in  favour  of 
the  Temple.  His  pupils  must  have  kept  alive  his  ideal  of  holi- 
ness and  of  devotion  to  the  sacred  House.  No  doubt  the  situa- 
tion in  Judah  was  bad  enough.  Very  few  of  the  people  there 
strove  after  the  ideals  which  the  exiles  had  at  heart.  Even  idola- 
try had  not  been  overcome — it  is  one  of  our  traditional  errors  to 
suppose  that  the  exile  or  the  people's  experience  of  misfortune 
crushed  it  out.  But  with  all  her  faults,  Jerusalem  was  still  the 
home  of  the  exile's  yearning.  He  would  rather  let  his  right 
hand  lose  its  cunning  than  forget  Jerusalem  his  chief  joy.  It  is 
this  affection  for  Jerusalem  which  gave  Judaism  its  coherence  and 
strength  during  the  centuries  when  the  people  were  scattered 
over  the  face  of  the  earth.  And  the  consciousness  that  their 
city  was  the  object  of  so  much  affection  kept  up  the  courage  of 
the  little  remnant  which  lived  in  Palestine,  and  enabled  them  to 
endure  when  otherwise  (humanly  speaking)  they  must  have 
succumbed. 

Whether  the  moral  support  would  have  sufficed  to  keep  the 
idealism  alive  for  an  indefinite  period  we  are  not  called  upon  to 
decide.  At  this  juncture  there  arose  in  the  East  a  clear-headed 
man,  who  saw  that  practical  measures  were  called  for  to  strength- 
en the  beloved  city  and  who  had  the  energy  to  carry  out  such 
measures. 


CHAPTER   XVII 

NEHEMIAH    AND    AFTER 

THE  interest  with  which  thoughtful  Jews  in  exile  followed  the 
fortunes  of  the  mother  city  is  revealed  to  us  in  the  memoirs  of 
Nehemiah.  This  man,  with  the  facility  and  talent  which  the 
Jews  have  always  shown,  made  himself  useful  in  the  court  of  Per- 
sia. He  held  the  office  of  butler  to  Artaxerxes,  whom  we  sup- 
pose to  be  the  second  of  the  name.1 

In  the  twentieth  year  of  this  monarch's  reign  (B.C.  385),  cer- 
tain Jews  who  had  made  a  visit  to  Jerusalem  returned  to  Susa. 
Possibly  they  were  a  delegation  sent  from  the  East  to  report  on 
the  actual  condition  of  the  city.  They  reported  to  Nehemiah 
concerning  the  remnant  who  were  left  of  the  captivity.  The  lan- 
guage indicates  Nehemiah's  view  that  the  people  in  Judah  were 
the  survivors  of  Nebuchadrezzar's  deportation,  and  not  exiles  or 
descendants  of  exiles.1  Their  condition  is  described  as  forlorn 
enough — the  walls  of  the  city  are  in  ruins,  and  the  people  are  in 
humiliation  and  disgrace,  evidently  because  they  are  defenceless 
against  the  attacks  of  their  lawless  neighbours.  In  distress  at 
what  he  hears,  Nehemiah  pours  out  his  soul  in  confession  to 
God.  He  sees  in  the  exile  a  fulfilment  of  the  threats  of  Deuter- 
onomy, and  pleads  with  God  to  remember  also  the  promise : 
"If  you  keep  my  commandments  and  do  them,  though  you  be 
scattered  to  the  end  of  the  heavens  yet  I  will  gather  you  thence 

1  There  is  as  yet  no  agreement  among  the  historians  as  to  the  Artaxerxes 
of  our  text.  Heretofore  he  has  been  supposed  to  be  Artaxerxes  I,  Longi- 
manus,  but  the  present  tendency  is  to  identify  him  with  Artaxerxes  II,  Mne- 
mon  (B.C.  404-361).  So  Marquart,  Fundamente  Israel,  und  Jtid.  Geschichte, 
p.  31,  and  Torrey,  Composition  of  Ezra- Nehemiah,  p.  65.  A  sketch  of  the 
reign  of  Artaxerxes  II  is  given  by  Justi,  Geschichte  des  Alten  Persiens,  pp. 
129-137.  He  was  a  man  of  weak  character,  easily  influenced  by  his  family 
and  his  dependants. 

1  Various  attempts  have  been  made  to  explain  away  the  plain  sense  of  the 
words  (Neh.  i  *).  Their  force  is  overwhelming  when  we  consider  that  they 
were  written  by  Nehemiah  himself. 

382 


NEHEMIAH  AND  AFTER  383 

and  bring  you  to  the  place  where  I  chose  to  make  my  name 
dwell."  • 

Nehemiah  was  a  practical  man,  and  it  did  not  take  long  for 
him  to  resolve  on  action — possibly  a  long-cherished  hope  now 
became  a  resolve.  When  a  convenient  opportunity  came  he 
presented  his  petition  to  the  king.  It  was  nothing  less  than  that 
the  king  would  send  him  to  the  city  of  the  sepulchres  of  his  fathers 
to  rebuild  it.  The  appeal  to  natural  piety  in  that  phrase,  "  city 
of  the  sepulchres  of  his  fathers,"  touches  us  at  once  and  we  do 
not  wonder  that  it  reached  the  king's  heart.  He  appointed  Ne- 
hemiah pasha  of  Jerusalem,  and  gave  him  the  customary  body- 
guard.* Whether  he  was  supported  at  court  by  a  Jewish  party 
does  not  appear.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  the  Jews  of  the  East, 
who  still  thought  of  themselves  as  the  true  Israel,  were  planning 
a  Zionist  movement  which  would  revive  their  depressed  nation, 
and  give  it  a  more  worthy  home  in  the  ancestral  territory.  In 
their  life  among  Gentiles,  they  had  learned  to  lay  stress  upon 
purity  of  blood.  What  they  learned  of  their  compatriots  in  Pal- 
estine showed  a  regrettable  laxity  in  this  respect.  Nehemiah 
may  well  have  been  the  pioneer  of  a  movement  to  correct  this 
abuse  as  well  as  to  give  the  commonwealth  more  consistency. 

By  favour  of  his  monarch  Nehemiah  was  civil  governor  of  the 
district,  and  this  gave  him  an  advantage  which  he  used  to  the  ut- 
most. Without  it  he  would  have  failed  in  his  object,  for  he 
found  himself  opposed  by  a  powerful  party  from  the  time  of  his 
arrival.  Recalling  what  has  already  been  said  about  the  situa- 
tion in  Palestine  we  can  easily  understand  this.  Party  lines  were 
already  drawn.  There  was  a  stricter  and  there  was  a  laxer  view 
of  spiritual  (which  included  temporal)  things,  and  the  adherents 
of  one  view  looked  upon  the  adherents  of  the  other  with  suspicion. 
One  sect  was  intent  upon  religion,  the  observance  of  the  Law, 
the  Messianic  hope.  Its  members  were  mostly  among  the  lowly. 
They  were  opposed  and  perhaps  derided  by  the  more  worldly 
minded,  the  wealthy,  the  nobles,  who  wished  to  develop  trade 

1  Neh.  i '.  That  the  language  is  the  language  of  Deuteronomy  needs  no 
demonstration.  It  is  almost  superfluous  to  point  out  that  the  prayer  betrays 
no  knowledge  of  a  partial  fulfilment  of  the  promise,  either  under  Cyrus  or 
under  the  lead  of  Ezra. 

*  Whether  he  also  received  letters  to  the  governors  of  "  Beyond-the-river  ** 
with  requisitions  for  timber  as  is  stated  in  the  present  text  is  doubtful ;  cf. 
Torrey,  Composition  of  Etra-Nehemiah,  p.  36. 


384  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

and  to  keep  on  good  terms  with  their  neighbours.  Of  this  party 
Nehemiah  has  some  knowledge — at  least  he  supposes  them  to  be 
ill-affected  from  the  start.  Their  leaders  were  Sanballat,  a  Ho- 
ronite — Sheikh  of  the  town  or  district  of  Beth-horon, 1  we  may 
suppose — Geshem  an  Arabian  and  Tobiah  an  Ammonite.  All 
these  men  were  worshippers  of  Yahweh  and  had  claims  to  be  re- 
garded as  Israelite  by  blood.  How  Geshem  got  his  name  Arabian 
cannot  now  be  made  out.  Tobiah  is  called  the  Ammonite  slave. 
He  seems  to  have  been  one  of  those  domestic  servants  who  so 
often  in  the  East  have  come  to  the  front  by  force  of  character  or 
by  unscrupulous  devotion  to  their  masters'  interests.  What 
aroused  these  men's  anger  was  that  one  was  come  "  to  seek  the 
good  of  the  Sons  of  Israel  "  — Nehemiah  regards  himself  as  cham- 
pion of  the  true  Israel.  If  he  were  pioneer  of  a  movement  to  re- 
establish the  exiles  in  their  old  home,  the  power  and  prestige  of 
these  native  leaders  would  be  diminished  if  not  destroyed.  Hence 
their  opposition,  which  made  itself  felt  continuously  from  this 
time  on.  It  should  be  remarked  that  these  men  seem  to  have 
lived  on  their  own  domains  outside  Jerusalem,  and  a  natural  re- 
luctance to  have  the  city  again  overshadow  the  country  may  have 
reinforced  their  party  feeling. 

Nehemiah  found  some  officials  in  the  city  and  they  received  him 
with  due  respect,  though  at  first  he  was  silent  concerning  the  main 
object  of  his  visit.  Three  days  after  his  arrival  he  inspected  the 
walls,  riding  out  at  night  that  he  might  be  undisturbed.  Begin- 
ning at  the  Valley  Gate  (perhaps  near  the  present  Jaffa  Gate)  he 
turned  to  the  left  and  followed  the  line  of  the  wall  to  the  Kedron 
valley.  At  this  point  the  debris  was  so  piled  up  that  his  riding 
animal  could  not  go  on.  He  went  some  distance  farther  on  foot, 
then  retraced  his  steps  to  the  point  from  which  he  started.  He 
does  not  tell  us  how  complete  the  destruction  was,  nor  how  recent. 
Various  hypotheses  have  been  advanced  concerning  attacks  upon 
Jerusalem  in  the  Persian  period.  None  of  them  seem  to  rest 
upon  reliable  evidence.  We  may  suppose  that  the  Chaldeans  left 
considerable  portions  of  the  old  walls  intact.  We  know  that 
Zechariah  discouraged  any  attempt  to  rebuild  them,  on  the  ground 
that  Jerusalem  would  be  too  extensive  to  be  thus  enclosed.  What 
Nehemiah  saw  may  have  been  the  result  of  time  and  neglect.  In 

1  The  two  Beth-horons  are  still  pointed  out,  about  twelve  miles  northwest 
of  Jerusalem. 


NEHEMIAH  AND  AFTER  385 

many  places  the  original  foundations  would  doubtless  still  be  in 
good  condition. 

Without  delay  Nehemiah  called  a  council  of  the  people  and 
proposed  the  rebuilding  of  the  wall,  at  the  same  time  laying  be- 
fore them  his  commission  from  the  king.  The  majority  agreed  to 
the  proposition,  only  the  three  leaders  already  mentioned  opposed 
the  scheme  and  suspected  (or  feigned  to  suspect)  plans  of  rebell- 
ion against  the  Persian  government.  They  were  able  to  effect 
nothing,  for  Nehemiah  held  the  king's  commission.  Moreover, 
the  project  was  in  itself  reasonable.  Why  should  a  city  with  a 
history,  the  site  of  a  famous  sanctuary,  the  capital  of  a  districtf 
be  left  exposed  to  the  attacks  of  the  Bedawin  ?  Probably  Ne- 
hemiah had  the  right  to  call  for  labourers  under  the  king's  author- 
ity. If  we  may  trust  the  list  which  has  come  down  to  us,  the 
work  was  done  not  alone  by  the  people  of  Jerusalem  but  by  the 
people  of  the  Judaite  towns  of  the  district.1  Even  without  re- 
lying upon  the  list  implicitly,  we  may  suppose  that  it  represents 
the  method  in  which  the  work  went  on.  Certain  villages,  or 
guilds,  or  powerful  families  were  made  responsible  for  certain 
sections  of  the  wall,  while  Nehemiah  took  the  oversight  of  the 
whole. 

The  opposers  at  first  contented  themselves  with  scoffing.  San- 
ballat  asked  whether  the  builders  would  ever  be  able  to  finish ; 
Tobiah  remarked  that  the  slight  structure  they  were  raising  would 
not  keep  out  a  fox.  The  relations  of  the  two  parties  were  such 
that  the  sneers  were  reported  at  once  to  Nehemiah,  who  replied 
with  vigorous  curses.  The  heart  of  the  people  was  in  the  work, 
however,  and  the  wall  soon  showed  the  effect,  the  breaches  being 
filled  up,  and  the  line  made  continuous  to  half  the  height  in- 
tended. When  it  got  so  far,  and  showed  signs  of  becoming  an 
effective  protection  to  the  city,  more  vigorous  opposition  was 
planned.  The  enemies  thought  of  making  an  attack  in  force. 
We  can  hardly  suppose  serious  warfare  contemplated.  More 
likely  there  was  to  be  only  a  sudden  rush  to  throw  the  builders 
into  confusion  and  in  the  confusion  to  throw  down  some  of  the 
new  structure. 

*  Unfortunately  the  detailed  list  in  Neh.  3  shows  such  distinct  marks  of 
the  Chronicler's  style  that  we  must  view  its  historicity  with  suspicion  (so 
Torrey,  /.  c .,  p.  37  f.).  It  is,  in  fact,  difficult  to  see  why  Nehemiah,  in  record* 
ing  the  incidents  of  his  own  life,  should  insert  a  long  catalogue  like  this. 


386  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

But  Nehemiah  was  equal  to  every  emergency.  The  enemies1 
plans  were  reported  to  him,  probably  losing  nothing  in  carrying. 
In  the  interest  of  peace,  faint-hearted  or  lukewarm  workers 
begged  their  brethren  to  cease  working.  But  the  leader  was  not 
to  be  discouraged.  He  dropped  work  only  long  enough  to  make 
his  army  of  labourers  an  army  of  soldiers.  He  mustered  them 
by  their  natural  divisions  of  clans  and  armed  them  with  swords, 
bows,  and  spears.  He  had  a  body-guard  who  were  accustomed 
to  the  use  of  arms.  The  report  of  his  measures  of  defence  was 
enough  to  daunt  the  enemy,  and  the  main  work  was  resumed 
with  vigour.1  In  order  to  guard  against  surprise,  however,  the 
workmen  kept  their  weapons  at  hand,  the  leaders  slept  on  their 
arms,  a  regular  watch  was  set  and  the  body-guard  was  kept  on 
the  alert.  Nehemiah  himself  was  on  the  wall  constantly  and 
kept  the  trumpeter  by  him  so  as  to  rally  the  whole  force  to  any 
point  where  it  might  become  necessary  to  repel  attack. 

These  measures  effectually  prevented  an  attack  from  without. 
But  a  new  and  threatening  complication  arose  from  within.  The 
work  on  the  wall  was  done  largely  by  the  common  people,  who 
seem  to  have  responded  willingly  to  the  call  of  the  governor. 
But  they  worked  without  pay,  and  soon  exhausted  their  own 
slender  resources.  The  oriental  peasant  is  frequently  heavily  in 
debt,  borrowing  money  at  exorbitant  rates  to  pay  his  taxes,  or  to 
tide  him  over  a  bad  year.  The  Jewish  cultivators  had  done  this, 
mortgaging  their  fields  and  houses,  some  of  them  pledging  their 
children.  The  season  was  a  bad  one,  if  we  may  judge  by  their 
allusion  to  the  famine.  The  work  on  the  wall  brought  things  to 
a  crisis.  The  debts  must  be  paid,  the  mortgages  were  about  to  be 
foreclosed  ;  the  children  were  in  some  cases  already  delivered  over 
to  the  creditors.  We  cannot  wonder  that  this  seemed  a  hard  return 
for  their  meritorious  and  self-denying  work  on  behalf  of  their  city, 
or  that  the  complaints  soon  became  loud  enough  to  reach  the  ears 
of  Nehemiah.  The  governor  was  equal  to  the  occasion.  He  called 
the  nobles  together  and  rebuked  them  for  their  oppression  of  their 

1  The  text  of  Neh.  4  '  '•  is  not  altogether  sound,  but  the  sense  may  be  re- 
stored with  some  probability — the  threat  of  attack  is  met  with  a  fine  show 
of  resistance.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  division  of  chapters  in  the  Eng- 
lish Bible  differs  from  that  in  the  Hebrew  by  six  verses :  3  *S~S8  of  the  He- 
brew is  4  *•*  of  the  English,  and  of  course  4  1~IT  of  the  Hebrew  is  4  T*M  of 
the  English.  I  cite  according  to  the  Hebrew  text. 


NEHEMIAH   AND   AFTER  387 

poorer  brethren.  He  and  like-minded  men  in  the  distant  East 
(he  says)  had  been  accustomed  to  ransom  those  of  their  own 
blood  who  had  been  sold  into  slavery.  Now  these  oppressors 
were  doing  just  the  contrary — selling  their  debtors,  though  Jews 
like  themselves,  into  slavery  to  the  Gentiles.  Nehemiah  himself 
had  loaned  money  and  corn  to  these  poor  people.  This  fact  gives 
force  to  his  proposition  that  the  debts  should  be  remitted.  Backed 
by  his  strong  personality  the  appeal  was  effectual,  the  debts  were 
remitted,  and  under  solemn  oath  the  creditors  restored  the  pledges 
in  their  hands.  The  crisis  was  thus  successfully  met.  * 

The  governor  takes  occasion  by  this  incident  to  set  before  us 
his  method  of  life.  He  made  no  use  of  his  right  to  levy  a  tax  on  the 
people  for  his  own  support.  The  former  pashas  had  exacted  forty 
shekels  a  day  in  table  allowance,  and  their  retainers  had  been  al- 
lowed in  oriental  fashion  to  make  requisitions  for  themselves.  All 
this  was  now  stopped.  Nehemiah  drew  upon  his  private  fortune 
for  his  personal  expenses,  and  from  the  same  source  kept  a  public 
table  for  the  nobles  and  guests.  He  provided  thus  regularly  for 
at  least  a  hundred  and  fifty  persons.  His  body-guard  instead  of 
being  a  burden  on  the  people  was  made  a  help,  by  being  put  at 
work  upon  the  wall.  All  this  is  told  us  with  a  refreshing  sim- 
plicity :  the  man  was  doubtless  conscious  of  his  own  merits.  But 
then  the  merits  were  there,  and  the  limitations  of  the  man  do 
not  interfere  with  our  admiration.  His  generous  and  decided 
action  must  have  put  fresh  life  into  his  discouraged  country- 
men.1 

As  the  work  of  the  wall  went  on,  the  party  of  opposition  con- 
tinued their  activity.  At  one  time  they  proposed  to  Nehemiah 
to  come  out  to  one  of  the  villages  to  a  conference.  Why  they 
thought  he  could  be  induced  to  confer  with  them  we  are  not 
told.  Nehemiah  suspected  a  plot  to  kidnap  him  or  to  put  him 
out  of  the  way  by  violence.  The  work  in  which  he  was  engaged  re- 
quired his  personal  presence  and  he  so  informed  them.  As  repeated 

1  Neh.  5  I'li.  The  amen  of  the  people  in  v. ll  is  perhaps  an  embellish- 
ment by  the  Chronicler.  A  vivid  touch  is  given  the  narrative  by  Nehemiah'* 
shaking  out  the  skirt  of  his  robe  to  strengthen  his  imprecation. 

*  Neh.  5  '*-'•.  The  fact  that  Nehemiah  and  his  servants  did  not  inty  real 
estate  is  counted  among  the  merits.  The  meaning  is  probably  that  he  re- 
frained from  buying  the  properties  sold  under  foreclosure.  The  temptation 
to  speculate  in  real  estate  must  have  been  considerable,  especially  when  other 
buyers  would  hesitate  to  bid  against  the  governor. 


388  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

verbal  messages  had  no  effect,  they  sent  him  a  letter.1  In  this  docu- 
ment they  charged  in  so  many  words  that  Nehemiah  and  his  party 
were  planning  a  revolt,  which  was  to  place  him  on  the  throne. 
Further,  they  claimed  that  he  had  suborned  prophets  to  proclaim 
him  king  in  Judah.  There  may  have  been  colour  to  the  charge 
to  this  extent :  that  light-headed  enthusiasts  were  looking  for  the 
advent  of  the  Messiah  and  were  taking  no  pains  to  conceal  their 
expectations.  So  important  a  move  as  rebuilding  the  city  walls 
would  almost  inevitably  stimulate  such  hopes.  Nehemiah's  whole 
conduct  acquits  him  of  any  part  in  this  fanaticism.  In  reply  to 
the  letter  he  drily  replies  that  Sanballat  is  putting  forward  the 
figment  of  his  own  brain.  The  conspirators  had  not  yet  ex- 
hausted their  resources.  They  themselves  suborned  prophets  to 
give  deceitful  advice  to  Nehemiah.  This  clique  affected  to  be 
alarmed  for  Nehemiah's  safety,  and  proposed  that  he  and  his 
friends  should  take  refuge  in  the  Temple — the  sanctuary  could 
easily  be  made  into  a  fortress.  The  right  of  asylum  rested  upon 
tradition,  and  may  have  been  the  basis  upon  which  they  urged 
their  scheme.  But  to  follow  the  advice  would  show  cowardice 
or  an  evil  conscience  or  both.  If  it  had  been  followed,  the  en- 
trance into  the  Temple  might  be  made  the  basis  of  a  charge  that 
Nehemiah  already  arrogated  regal  privileges.  But  the  plot  was 
too  transparent  and  it  failed.  Nehemiah  seems  to  have  been 
guided  by  religious  principle,  holding  that  a  layman  had  no  right 
to  enter  the  sanctuary.*  I  have  spoken  of  a  clique  because  sev- 
eral persons  were  concerned  in  this  plot — a  prophetess  named 
Noadiah  is  named  as  though  she  were  especially  active. 

None  of  these  things  hindered  the  work,  and  the  wall  was 
completed  in  fifty-two  days.8  The  opposers  were  astonished  and 

1  The  letter  was  without  a  seal,  which  would  be  regarded  as  insulting.  So, 
in  fact,  Nehemiah  interpreted  it.  If  the  senders  were  intending  to  conciliate 
him  they  would  not  have  offered  an  insult,  and  on  this  account  the  omission 
of  the  seal  has  been  taken  to  be  an  intimation  that  the  contents  of  the  letter 
were  public  property.  It  is  easier  to  suppose  the  senders  simply  careless 
about  forms. 

1  Neh.  6  '-1*.  Commentators  have  puzzled  themselves  to  explain  why 
Nehemiah  should  visit  Shemaiah  who  gave  this  advice.  Probably  Shemaiah 
had  sent  for  him,  pleading  matters  of  importance  and  his  own  (ritual)  inabil- 
ity to  come  to  Nehemiah. 

1  This  is  the  assertion  of  our  Hebrew  text,  Neh.  6  ".  Josephus  gives  two 
years  and  four  months  (Ant.,  XI,  5,  8),  which  seems  more  reasonable;  and 
which  is  defended  by  Sir  Henry  Howorth  (Proc.  Soc.  Bib.  Arch.t  XXV, 


NEHEMIAH   AND   AFTER  389 

put  to  shame.  But  their  activity  was  not  checked,  for  we  learn 
that  the  correspondence  between  them  and  their  adherents  in 
Jerusalem  became  more  frequent.  The  intimacy  is  explained  by 
the  fact  that  Tobiah  was  connected  by  marriage  with  leading 
priestly  families.  But  the  correspondence  seems  to  have  effected 
nothing.  For  the  time  being,  Nehemiah  had  triumphed.  He 
took  measures  to  secure  police  protection  for  the  new  gates,  and 
(we  may  suppose)  strengthened  his  party  by  some  sort  of  organi- 
sation. Unfortunately  his  memoirs  break  off  here,  and  we  are 
in  the  dark  as  to  his  succeeding  history.  Our  present  text  tells 
us  that  his  term  of  office  extended  over  twelve  years.  But  we 
can  hardly  suppose  him  to  have  stayed  away  from  the  court  so 
long.1  The  account  of  his  second  visit  is  from  the  hand  of  the 
Chronicler  and  cannot  be  relied  upon.*  Whatever  the  facts,  we 
can  see  that  this  work  of  Nehemiah  gave  a  mighty  impulse  to 
the  stricter  Judaism.  The  party  of  the  pious  who  had  been 
depressed  was  strengthened  and  encouraged.  They  began  to 
draw  the  lines  between  themselves  and  their  laxer  neighbours 
more  sharply.  The  work  of  codifying  and  enriching  the  Law 
was  taken  up  afresh.  In  fact,  the  period  which  began  with  Nehe- 
miah's  visit  was  the  formative  period  for  the  Judaism  which  we 
find  dominant  in  New  Testament  times. 

The  rise  of  Judaism  was,  of  course,  a  gradual  process.  The 
foundations  were  laid  by  Ezekiel.  But  Ezekiel's  ideas  had  not 
been  at  once  assimilated — probably  they  were  more  effective 
among  the  Dispersed  than  in  Palestine.  Among  the  Gentiles  the 
policy  of  religious  separatism  was  essential.  In  Palestine,  as  we 
have  seen,  it  made  its  way  slowly.  Nehemiah  was  one  of  those 
positive  characters  about  whom  popular  parties  rally.  He  was 
no  compromiser,  and  he  made  the  situation  plain  to  those  who 
were  already  inclined  to  regard  themselves  as  the  true  Israel. 
From  his  time  the  stricter  Jews  began  to  regard  their  adversaries 
as  the  "  people  of  the  land  "  against  which  their  earlier  lawgivers 
warned  them.  The  more  liberal  ideas  of  Deutero- Isaiah  gave  way 

p.  18  f.).  But  until  we  know  more  about  Josephus's  sources,  it  seems  unsafe 
to  rely  upon  any  statement  of  his. 

1  Neh.  5  u  claims  that  for  twelve  years  Nehemiah  did  not  eat  the  bread  of 
the  pasha.  But  his  agreement  with  the  king  was  for  only  a  limited  furlough 
— two  years  would  be  as  long  as  he  could  be  spared  from  his  place. 

*  Neh.  13  is  the  work  of  the  Chronicler  as  is  shown  by  Torrey, 
tition,  p.  44  ff. 


390  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

before  the  practical  exigency.  Emphasis  was  laid  upon  purity 
of  blood  and  upon  observance  of  the  Law.  In  the  course  of  a 
century  or  so  after  Nehemiah  the  process  was  complete.  Of  its 
details  we  are  ignorant. 

We  have,  however,  a  tradition  which  deserves  our  considera- 
tion. It  comes  from  the  hand  of  the  Chronicler,  and  must  be 
received,  like  all  his  narrative,  as  a  picture  of  what  he  thought 
must  have  taken  place  rather  than  a  picture  of  what  actually  did 
take  place.  Its  hero  is  Ezra,  a  priest  and  scribe  —  eponym,  one 
might  almost  say,  of  the  powerful  guild  which  influenced  the 
whole  history  of  Judaism.  The  story  is  as  follows  :  l  After  the 
completion  of  the  Temple,  Ezra,  a  lineal  descendant  of  Aaron  and 
skilful  scribe  of  the  Law  of  Moses,  went  up  to  Jerusalem.  The 
Temple  having  been  completed,  it  was  time  to  reintroduce  the 
observance  of  the  Law.  It  was  in  the  seventh  year  of  Artax- 
erxes* that  this  man  went  up  to  Jerusalem  with  a  considerable 
train  of  returning  exiles.  He  carried  with  him  a  firman  from 
Artaxerxes  whose  tenor  is  so  remarkable  that  I  reproduce  it  in  full  : 

"  Artaxerxes,  King  of  Kings,  to  Ezra  the  priest,  Scribe  of 
the  Law  of  the  God  of  Heaven  :  Greeting. 

"  To  proceed  :  I  have  made  a  decree  that  anyone  of  the  peo- 
ple of  Israel  or  priests  or  Levites,  in  my  kingdom,  who  is  will- 
ing to  go  to  Jerusalem  shall  go  with  thee  ;  because  thou  art 
sent  by  the  King  and  his  seven  Counsellors  to  hold  an  inquisi- 
tion concerning  Judah  and  Jerusalem  with  the  Law  of  thy 
God  which  is  in  thy  hand  ;  and  to  bring  the  silver  and  gold 
which  the  King  and  his  Counsellors  have  offered  freely  to 
the  God  of  Israel  whose  dwelling  is  in  Jerusalem,  with  all  the 
silver  and  gold  which  thou  shalt  receive  in  the  whole  province 
of  Babylon,  with  the  contribution  of  the  people  and  priests 
who  contribute  for  the  house  of  their  God  in  Jerusalem. 
Therefore  thou  shalt  punctually  buy  with  this  money  oxen, 
rams,  and  lambs,  meal  offerings  also  and  libations  belonging 
thereto,  and  offer  them  on  the  altar  of  the  house  of  your 
God  which  is  in  Jerusalem.  And  whatever  shall  seem  good 
to  thee  and  thy  brethren  to  do  with  the  rest  of  the  silver  and 
gold,  so  do  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  your  God.  And 
the  vessels  given  thee  for  the  service  of  the  house  of  thy  God, 
deliver  before  God  in  Jerusalem.  Whatever  else  is  needed 


1  1  follow  the  able  analysis  of  Professor  Torrey,  Composition  and 
'.al  Value  of  Etra-  Nehemiah. 
*  Doubtless  the  patron  of  Nehemiah  is  the  king  intended  by  the  narrator. 


NEHEMIAH   AND   AFTER  391 

for  the  house  of  thy  God,  let  that  be  paid  from  the  King's 
treasury.  And  the  command  is  given  by  me,  Artaxerxes  the 
King,  to  all  the  treasurers  of  the  province  [called]  Beyond-tke- 
river  to  this  effect :  All  that  Ezra  the  priest,  the  scribe  of  the 
Law  of  the  God  of  Heaven,  shall  ask  you,  let  it  be  done  at 
once — up  to  a  hundred  talents  of  silver,  to  a  hundred  cors  of 
wheat,  a  hundred  baths  of  wine,  a  hundred  baths  of  oil,  and 
salt  in  any  amount.  All  the  will  of  the  God  of  Heaven  must 
be  diligently  performed  for  the  house  of  the  God  of  Heaven 
— why  should  His  wrath  fall  upon  the  kingdom  of  the  King 
and  his  sons  ?  And  be  it  known  to  you '  that  it  is  not  al- 
lowed to  lay  tax,  tribute,  or  toll  on  any  priest,  Levite,  singer, 
doorkeeper,  temple-servant,  or  workman  of  this  sanctuary. 
And  thou,  Ezra,  according  to  the  wisdom  of  thy  God  which 
is  in  thy  hand,  appoint  Judges  and  Justices  to  judge  all  the  peo- 
ple beyond  the  river,  all  such  as  know  the  commandments  of 
thy  God ;  and  such  as  do  not  know  you  shall  instruct.  And 
whoever  does  not  obey  the  Law  of  thy  God  and  the  law  of 
the  King,  let  strict  justice  be  done  upon  him— either  death  or 
banishment  or  fine  or  imprisonment."  * 

It  would  seem  superfluous  to  criticise  this  document  had  not 
its  genuineness  been  strenuously  upheld  of  late  years  even  by  some 
critical  scholars.1  Inscriptions  of  Persian  kings  in  favour  of  cer- 
tain temples  are  brought  forward  as  parallel.  These,  however, 
on  examination  prove  to  be  anything  but  parallel.  In  one  case 
the  servants  of  a  temple  are  protected  from  the  requisition  of 
forced  labour  and  the  Persian  officials  are  forbidden  to  annoy 
them  by  such  requisitions,  and  this  on  the  specific  ground  that 
the  divinity  had  given  a  truthful  oracle  to  an  earlier  Persian 
monarch.  In  the  other  case  an  ancient  right  of  asylum  is  simply 
confirmed.*  In  contrast  with  these  modest  advantages  consider 
the  enormous  powers  conferred  upon  Ezra.  He  is  to  proceed  to 
Jerusalem  and  make  inquisition  concerning  the  observance  of  the 

lTh«  address  here  changes  from  Ezra  to  the  governors  and  tax-gatherers 
bat  without  naming  them. 

1  Ezra,  7>*-»- 

'  Especially  by  Meyer,  Eniitekung  des  Judentums,  p.  60  ff.,  who  accounts 
for  the  strong  Jewish  colouring  of  the  decree  by  supposing  it  was  drawn  up 
by  Ezra  and  his  friends  at  court  and  submitted  to  the  king,  who  good- 
naturedly  signed  it.  Whether  a  decree  in  Council  would  be  so  lightly  dis- 
posed of  is  doubtful.  Cf.  also  Marquart,  Fundamentt,  p.  37  f. 

*  The  Gadatas  inscription  is  given  by  Meyer  in  his  Entstehung,  p.  iQf.J 
the  Tralles  inscription  by  the  same  author  in  his  Forschungen,  II,  p.  497. 


392  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

Law.  He  is  to  appoint  judges  to  administer  this  Law.  Such  as 
are  not  fully  acquainted  with  it  are  to  be  instructed  in  it.  Ac- 
cording to  the  wording  of  the  decree  this  new  code  is  to  be  en- 
forced throughout  the  whole  of  Syria.  We  may  charitably  sup- 
pose that  the  author  of  the  decree  intended  it  to  apply  only  to 
Jewish  settlers  in  Syria.  In  a  royal  decree,  however,  one  ex- 
pects a  more  precise  definition  of  the  persons  affected.  In  addi- 
tion, the  ministers  of  the  Temple,  down  to  the  most  menial,  are 
to  be  exempt,  not  only  from  forced  labour,  as  in  the  Gadatas  in- 
scription, but  from  tax,  toll,  and  tribute  of  any  kind.  Enormous 
sums  of  money  are  put  at  Ezra's  disposition  for  the  benefit  of  the 
Temple.1  The  position  of  Ezra,  in  possession  of  this  decree,  is 
comparable  only  to  that  of  Solomon — with  the  advantage  that 
Ezra  had  no  foreign  wars  to  fear,  the  peace  being  secured  by  the 
Persian  power.  In  fact  it  is  difficult  to  consider  seriously  the 
claim  that  this  decree  was  ever  issued.  All  the  objections  urged 
above  against  the  decree  of  Cyrus  apply  here  with  tenfold  force. 

But  let  us  return  to  the  Chronicler's  picture  of  Ezra  and  his 
times.  The  great  scribe  is  now  introduced  as  writing  his  own 
memoirs.  He  carefully  gives  the  genealogical  status  of  the  emi- 
grants who  joined  his  train,  to  assure  us  that  none  but  full-blooded 
Israelites  were  of  the  number.  His  care  for  the  Temple  service 
is  shown  by  the  fact  that  when  no  Levites  appeared,  he  sent  back 
to  Casiphia  and  succeeded  in  enlisting  over  two  hundred.1  The 
entire  company  numbered  over  seventeen  hundred  males.  A  cara- 
van of  that  size  carrying  the  king's  firman  would  hardly  be  mo- 
lested on  the  journey,  and  it  could  require  no  great  act  of  faith 
to  forego  the  military  escort  offered  by  the  king. 

The  narrative  goes  on  to  state  that  the  journey  was  safely  made 
and  that  after  three  days,  to  allow  for  purification,  those  who  had 
charge  of  the  treasure  delivered  it  safely  at  the  Temple.  Abun- 
dant sacrifices  were  offered  and  the  returned  exiles  gave  the  royal 
mandate  to  the  Persian  officials  and  received  the  subventions 
therein  indicated.  The  heads  of  the  clans  contributed  liberally 

1  Meyer  does  not  find  them  exaggerated.  But  a  million  dollars  in  silver 
and  two  millions  in  gold  will  seem  to  most  people  a  disproportionate  amount 
for  the  object  proposed. 

1  This  includes  the  Ntthinim  or  descendants  of  the  slaves  presented  to  the 
Temple  by  the  kings  of  Judah.  They  are  now  classified  with  the  Levites, 
though  so  different  in  origin. 


NEHEMIAH  AND  AFTER  393 

to  the  Temple  treasury,  the  census  of  "  those  who  came  up  at  the 
first"  was  examined,  then  priests,  Levites,  and  people  took  up 
their  residence  in  their  cities.1 

Two  months  were  allowed  the  immigrants  to  settle  themselves 
in  their  homes  *  and  then  a  popular  assembly  was  called.  There 
was  to  be  no  further  delay  in  introducing  the  Law;  its  intro- 
duction being  the  great  object  of  the  journey.  The  Book  was 
brought.  Ezra  stood  upon  a  platform  which  had  been  raised  for 
this  occasion,  opened  the  Book  and  pronounced  a  benediction, 
to  which  the  people  responded  with  an  Amen.  The  reading 
began,  the  Levites  giving  their  assistance.  Exactly  how  the  part 
of  the  Levites  is  to  be  conceived  is  not  clear.  The  account  tells 
how  the  people  were  affected  with  grief  at  the  reading,  how  they 
were  encouraged  and  directed  to  observe  the  day  as  a  joyous 
festival.  The  next  day  the  reading  was  resumed  and  they  reached 
the  passage  which  gives  directions  concerning  the  observance  of 
the  Feast  of  Booths,  and  proceeded  at  once  to  the  observance  of 
this  festival.  We  are  told  that  it  had  not  been  observed  from 
the  days  of  Joshua.* 

The  auspicious  beginning  was  followed  by  a  revulsion  ;  where 
all  had  seemed  so  fair  there  was  a  secret  blot.  The  first  immi- 
grants, for  these  we  must  understand  to  be  the  guilty  persons, 
had  not  kept  their  Israelite  blood  pure,  but  had  intermarried  with 
the  people  of  the  land.  This  discovery  was  a  grief  to  Ezra,  now 
the  temporal  and  spiritual  ruler  of  the  community.  When  he 
heard  of  it  he  rent  his  clothes,  tore  his  hair  and  beard,  and  sat 
on  the  ground  deprived  of  speech.  As  evening  approached  he 
made  confession  of  sin  in  a  long  prayer,  the  burden  of  which  is 
the  acknowledgment  that  intermarriage  with  the  people  of  the 
land  has  been  Israel's  crying  sin  in  the  past,  and  that  this  sin 
still  weighs  upon  them  in  the  present. 

A  great  assembly  gathered  about  the  praying  scribe  (we  still  fol- 
low the  narrative)  and  joined  in  lamentation  as  he  made  his  con- 

1  Professor  Torrey  makes  Neh.  7TO  the  continuation  of  Ezra,  8*.  I  think 
more  likely  7*  is  the  place  to  make  the  connexion.  In  this  case  Ez r a  in- 
spects the  genealogy  of  those  already  in  the  land  and  enrolls  them  in  the 
community  of  which  he  is  lawgiver,  before  reading  the  Law  to  them. 

*  They  had  reached  Jerusalem  the  first  day  of  the  fifth  month  (Ezra,  7*); 
the  assembly  was  called  in  the  seventh  month  (Neh.  7"). 

1  Specific  directions  for  the  construction  of  booths  are  found  only  in 
Lev.  23  *° — a  part  of  the  Holiness  Code. 


394  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

fession.  One  of  the  leaders  encouraged  him  boldly  to  take  hold 
of  the  evil  and  to  undertake  a  reform,  promising  that  the  people 
would  make  a  solemn  agreement  to  divorce  the  obnoxious  wives 
and  send  them  away  with  their  children.  Ezra  therefore  im- 
posed an  oath  on  all  the  leaders  that  they  would  carry  out  this 
programme.  Another  solemn  assembly  was  called  and  the  greater 
excommunication  was  threatened  against  any  who  should  not 
come.  When  the  assembly  met,  Ezra  made  the  demand  that 
they  put  away  all  foreign  wives.  Some  voices  were  raised  in 
opposition,  but  the  majority  consented.  In  order  that  the  matter 
might  be  certainly  carried  through,  it  was  agreed  to  appoint  a 
commission  before  which  the  offenders  should  come  individually. 
The  nobles  and  judges  of  the  towns  were  to  report  to  this  com- 
mission. Every  precaution  was  taken  to  make  the  action  effec- 
tive. The  commission  was  appointed  and  completed  their  work 
in  three  months.  A  list  is  given  of  those  who  were  found  guilty 
and  who  put  away  wives  and  children.1 

Three  weeks  later  another  solemn  assembly  is  held.1  The 
true  Israel  has  now  separated  itself  from  strangers  and  is  ready  to 
renew  the  covenant.  After  a  public  reading  of  the  Law,  a  sol- 
emn confession  of  sin  is  made,  with  a  rehearsal  of  Yahweh's 
goodness  in  the  past.  This  is  followed  by  a  solemn  league  and 
covenant  signed  by  the  leaders  of  the  people  and  by  the  heads  of 
the  priesthood.  They  are  supported  by  the  whole  assembly,  who 
take  upon  themselves  a  solemn  oath  to  obey  the  Law  of  God, 
specifying  the  particulars  which  they  need  especially  to  guard 
from  negligence.  First  of  all  comes  the  vow  not  to  intermarry 
with  the  Gentiles.*  Then  is  emphasised  the  observance  of  the 
Sabbaths  and  festivals  by  the  refusal  to  trade  with  any  on  those 
days.  With  this  goes  the  observance  of  the  Sabbatical  year.  The 
support  of  the  sanctuary  by  a  poll-tax  follows.*  An  apportionment 

1  Ezra,  9  and  10.  The  consistency  of  the  act  from  the  legalistic  view  is 
praised  by  Whiston  in  his  note  to  Josephus,  Ant.  XI.,  5,  4.  More  modern 
readers  are  likely  to  condemn  it  as  cruel,  and  as  contrary  to  the  true  spirit 
of  Israel's  religion. 

*  Following  Torrey,  I  find  Ezra,  10",  continued  in  Neh.  9. 

'The  people  of  the  land here  spoken  of  are  identified  by  the  writer  with  the 
ancient  Canaanites.  In  fact,  they  were  only  such  as  could  not  prove  their 
pure  Judaite  blood. 

•  A  third  of  a  shekel  is  the  amount  fixed — afterward  raised  to  a  half-shekel. 
This  may  have  in  mind  the  tax  which  Ezekiel  allows  the  prince  to  levy  for 
the  sacrifices. 


NEHEMIAH   AND  AFTER  395 

for  the  supply  of  wood  for  the  altar  is  next  made  by  lot.  Further 
specifications  concern  the  first-fruits,  firstlings,  and  tithes.  The 
conclusion  of  the  account  sets  forth  the  measures  taken  to  re- 
populate  Jerusalem,  and  gives  more  of  those  lists  of  which  the 
Chronicler  is  so  fond.1 

We  have  already  commented  upon  this  author's  idea  of  the  ex- 
ile. He  supposed  the  whole  of  Israel  to  have  been  carried  away 
from  their  land.  There  were  left  in  the  country  only  the  Samari- 
tans and  some  remains  of  the  old  Canaanitish  population.  He 
supposed  that  at  the  close  of  the  exile  the  people  returned  in  two 
sections.  The  first  detachment  came  with  Zerubbabel  and  after 
some  delay  succeeded  in  building  the  Temple.  The  second  and 
more  important  caravan  came  with  Ezra ;  more  important  in  the 
eyes  of  the  narrator  because  they  brought  the  ancient  Law  with 
them.  Only  with  the  adoption  of  the  Law  was  the  nation  fully 
reconstituted.  Both  returns  were  accomplished  by  the  wholly 
miraculous  intervention  of  Yahweh,  who  moved  upon  the  heart, 
first  of  Cyrus,  then  of  Artaxerxes. 

That  the  picture  is  almost  wholly  drawn  from  the  imagination 
of  the  author  must  be  evident.  The  decree  of  Artaxerxes  is  a 
historic  impossibility.  It  was  much  for  a  king  to  give  Nehemiah 
the  power  which  he  actually  exerted.  But  the  explanation  is 
ready  at  our  hand — Nehemiah  was  a  trusted  personal  servant  of 
the  king.  But  Ezra  had  no  such  claims  to  consideration.  Ne- 
hemiah, moreover,  received  the  governorship  of  a  petty  district, 
with  power  to  accomplish  a  certain  limited  work.  Ezra  has  regal 
authority  and  the  disposition  of  the  imperial  treasury.  It  was  much 
for  Nehemiah  to  receive  such  a  position  from  a  Gentile  king. 
For  Ezra  to  receive  so  much  more  would  have  been  a  miracle 
indeed.  Doubtless  the  favour  of  Artaxerxes  toward  Nehemiah 
suggested  the  idea  of  his  decree  for  Ezra.  The  question  remains  : 
if  Ezra  had  received  his  powers  and  prerogatives  in  the  seventh 
year  of  Artaxerxes,  why  should  Nehemiah  need  to  make  his  jour- 
ney thirteen  years  later  ? f 

This  brings  us  to  the  most  surprising  fact  of  all.  Neither 
Nehemiah  nor  Ezra  knows  anything  of  the  other.  Ezra  makes 

I  The  final  chapter  of  Nehemiah,  in  which  Nehemiah's  memoirs  seem  tob« 
resumed,  is  also  apparently  an  invention  of  the  Chronicler. 

I 1  assume  (as  seems  clear  from  the  narrative)  that  the  same  Artaxerxes  i> 
intended  in  the  two  cases. 


396  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

his  journey  first  and  accomplishes  wonders ;  but  Nehemiah  has 
no  word  for  him  and  his  work.  Ezra  describes  the  dedication  of 
the  wall,  but  is  entirely  silent  as  to  its  builder.  One  would  think 
that  the  two  men  would  work  together  and  each  give  due  honour 
to  the  other.  If  we  had  only  the  story  of  Ezra  we  should  know 
nothing  of  Nehemiah1 — and  the  converse  is  also  true.  And  as  we 
look  closer  we  see  that  Ezra  cannot  have  done  what  he  is  said  to 
have  done  before  the  coming  of  Nehemiah.  Where  in  Ezra's  time 
were  all  those  turbulent  nobles  who  were  grieved  that  a  man  had 
come  to  seek  the  welfare  of  Israel  ?  Were  they  the  men  to  cower 
before  a  scribe,  when  they  plotted  so  persistently  against  the 
governor  of  Jerusalem  ?  They  were  certainly  not  the  men  tamely 
to  accept  the  Law  at  Ezra's  hands  and  to  put  away  wives  and 
children  at  his  bidding.  But  they  nowhere  appear  in  the  nar- 
rative, and  this  is  only  one  of  the  inexplicable  things  in  this 
inexplicable  story.  Yet,  incomprehensible  as  it  is  if  taken  as 
history,  so  comprehensible  is  it  if  taken  as  an  imaginative  tra- 
dition. 

As  has  been  pointed  out  by  others,  Ezra  is  unknown,  not  only 
to  Nehemiah,  but  to  Jesus  ben  Sira,  who  wrote  in  the  early  part 
of  the  second  century  B.C.  In  his  catalogue  of  heroes  of  Israel 
he  has  a  place  for  Nehemiah,  but  none  for  Ezra.  In  2  Maccabees 
also  it  is  Nehemiah,  rather  than  Ezra,  who  collects  the  sacred 
books  in  a  library.  It  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  either  of 
these  writers  would  have  passed  over  Ezra  had  he  been  known 
to  them. 

What  then  is  the  historical  fact  which  the  story  of  Ezra  repre- 
sents? It  is  this:  During  the  century  after  Nehemiah  the  com- 
munity in  Judah  was  becoming  more  rigid  in  its  exclusiveness 
and  in  its  devotion  to  the  ritual.  Ezra  is  the  impersonation  of 
both  tendencies.  Whether  there  was  a  scribe  named  Ezra  is  not 
a  matter  of  great  importance.  Very  likely  there  was  such  a 
scribe  to  whose  name  tradition  attached  itself.  First  it  trans- 
ferred the  favour  of  Artaxerxes  to  him  from  Nehemiah.  Then  it 
made  him  the  hero  of  the  introduction  of  the  Law.  And  finally 
it  attributed  to  him  the  abrogation  of  the  mixed  marriages.  It 
is  not  unlikely  that  Nehemiah,  after  building  the  wall,  induced 
the  people  to  take  upon  themselves  obligations  such  as  are  re- 

1  The  bare  occurrence  of  the  hame  at  the  head  of  those  who  signed  the 
coTcnant  (Neh.  10  *)  is  only  the  exception  that  proves  the  rule. 


NEHEMIAH   AND   AFTER  397 

counted  in  the  history.1  The  things  emphasised  there  are  such 
as  the  Babylonian  Jews  had  most  at  heart — purity  of  blood,  ob- 
servance of  the  Sabbath,  and  care  for  the  Temple  service.  The 
signing  of  such  a  covenant  would  put  the  scribes  in  a  position 
of  advantage.  To  do  them  justice,  these  men  were  fully  possessed 
by  an  idea — the  idea  that  if  the  Law  of  God  could  be  perfectly 
obeyed,  Israel's  future  would  be  glorious.  The  Law  which  was 
to  be  obeyed  was  in  their  hands  and  they  were  its  authoritative 
expounders.  If  only  the  Great  King  would  give  them  power  to 
enforce  it,  what  might  they  not  do  for  Israel's  benefit !  The 
wish  was  father  to  the  thought,  and  the  thought  gave  rise  to  the 
story  of  Ezra.  Ezra  was  the  ideal  scribe,  as  Solomon  was  the 
ideal  king,  projected  upon  the  background  of  an  earlier  age. 

As  soon  as  the  observance  of  a  complicated  code  becomes  the 
most  important  thing  in  life  the  expounders  of  that  code  become 
the  most  important  men  in  the  community.  The  rise  of  the 
class  of  scribes  is  certainly  one  of  the  most  important  events  of 
postexilic  history.  It  was,  in  fact,  a  process  rather  than  an  event. 
It  was  complete  by  the  time  of  the  Chronicler.  Several  genera- 
tions of  earnest  and  self-denying  men  must  have  wrought  to 
secure  the  triumph  of  their  order.  That  triumph  is  the  logical 
result  of  Ezekiel's  theory.  The  new  Israel  is  no  longer  a  nation  ; 
it  is  a  church  whose  whole  reason  for  being  is  the  sustentation 
of  divine  service,  and  the  conservation  of  that  holiness  which  is 
required  for  such  service.  The  emphasis  laid  upon  the  interests 
of  the  priests  and  Levites  is  not  because  the  scribes  usually  be- 
longed to  this  class.  These  interests  are  defended  because  priests 
and  Levites  are  necessary  to  the  carrying  on  of  the  Temple  service. 

The  ideal  of  holiness — that  is,  of  complete  separation  from  all 
that  is  not  consecrated  to  Yahweh — is  most  plainly,  we  might 
say  brutally,  set  before  us  in  the  account  of  the  divorce  of  foreign 
wives.  The  seed  of  Israel  must  be  kept  pure  from  intermixture ; 
this  wholly  physical  precaution  is  the  Chronicler's  interpretation 
of  the  injunction  to  be  holy.  In  his  zeal  for  purity  of  blood  he 
puts  the  people  of  the  land  (most  of  them  Israelite  in  blood)  in 
the  place  of  the  Canaanites  and  Amorites  of  which  history  told 
him.  This  is  no  doubt  the  idea  of  Babylonian  Judaism  carried 

1  In  fact,  Neh.  10  may  have  been  expanded  from  something  in  Nehe- 
miah's  memoirs.  It  has  often  been  remarked  that  the  obligations  of  this 
covenant  are  not  specifically  those  of  the  Priest-code. 


398  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

over  into  Palestine.  It  was  natural  for  those  who,  m  the  time  of 
Nehemiah  and  after,  returned  to  the  old  home,  to  affiliate  them- 
selves with  the  stricter  party  there.  This  party  would  readily 
count  their  opponents  to  be  heathen.  The  separation  became 
wider  with  time  and  culminated  in  the  Samaritan  schism.  It 
was  pictured  in  the  Chronicler's  mind  as  a  divorce  between  faith- 
ful Jews  and  their  Gentile  wives.  The  cruelty  of  turning  wife 
and  child  out  of  doors  would  be  no  reason  why  the  Law  should 
not  be  observed.  But  the  logic  of  the  scribe  would  certainly 
have  failed  to  carry  through  a  measure  of  the  kind  had  the  test 
been  actually  made.  What  the  narrative  means  to  do  is  to  em- 
phasise the  prohibition  of  intermarriage  ;  and  since  to  refuse  to 
take  a  Gentile  wife  is  a  very  different  thing  from  divorcing  one 
who  has  acquired  rights  in  the  home,  the  prohibition  prevailed,  at 
least,  among  the  stricter  Jews. 

That  it  did  not  prevail  without  protest  is  made  evident  by  one 
of  the  most  delightful  pieces  of  Hebrew  literature  that  have  come 
down  to  us — the  book  of  Ruth.  This  is  a  powerful  pamphlet  on 
the  side  of  the  foreign  wives.  Ruth,  the  heroine,  is  a  Moabitess, 
a  member  of  the  tribe  which  is  specifically  denied  the  rights  of 
citizenship  in  Israel  even  after  ten  generations.1  This  foreigner 
is  taken  to  wife  by  a  good  Israelite — a  native  of  Bethlehem. 
After  her  husband's  death  she  does  not  regard  herself  as  freed  from 
the  obligation  to  his  people,  but  returns  with  her  mother-in-law 
to  the  country  of  Judah.  There  she  is  married  to  the  next  of 
kin,1  who  is  set  before  us  as  a  model  of  piety,  generosity,  and 
chastity.  The  marriage  is  a  source  of  blessing,  not  only  to  the 
parties  concerned,  but  also  to  all  Israel,  for  from  this  marriage 
came  David,  the  great  and  pious  king.  The  story  is  told  with 
charming  simplicity  and  freshness  and  its  force  as  an  argument 
is  unmistakable.  If  in  the  old  days  Israel  had  acted  on  the 
principles  of  the  exclusive  party,  Ruth  and  her  son  would  have 
been  excommunicated.  Where  then  would  have  been  the  Judean 
monarchy  ?  Where  the  organization  of  the  priesthood  ?  Where 
the  Temple  itself? 

*The  regulation  found  in  the  Law  (Deut.  23*  )  means  that  if  a  Moabite 
becomes  a  settler  (client)  in  Israel,  his  descendants  shall  never  acquire  full 
rights  of  citizenship. 

1  Or  rather  to  the  nearest  kinsman  of  her  husband  who  is  willing  to  exer- 
cise his  right. 


NEHEMIAH   AND   AFTER  399 

But  the  protest  was  of  no  avail.  The  stricter  party  had  a  final 
answer  in  their  steady  reaffirmation  of  the  principle :  the  holy 
seed  must  be  kept  pure.  The  Chronicler  affirms  that  the  rigid 
law,  directed  primarily  against  the  Moabite  and  Ammonite,  was 
extended  so  as  to  cover  every  case  where  mixed  blood  was  sus- 
pected. One  Eliashib,  a  prominent  member  of  the  priestly  order, 
having  authority  in  the  Temple,  gave  storage  to  the  effects  of 
Tobiah — apparently  the  Ammonite  who  opposed  Nehemiah.1  In 
connexion  with  the  excommunication  of  the  mixed  multitude, 
these  goods  were  summarily  thrown  out  and  the  room  was  re- 
stored to  its  original  use.  It  is  evident  that  such  measures  must 
have  involved  also  the  banishment  of  Eliashib. 

It  is  possible  that  we  have  here  a  confused  account  of  the  Sa- 
maritan schism.  Concerning  this  we  have  Josephus's  narrative  as 
follows :  One  Sanballat  was  appointed  satrap  of  Samaria  by 
Darius,  the  last  king  of  Persia.  He  gave  his  daughter  in  mar- 
riage to  Manasseh,  brother  of  the  Jewish  high-priest.  The  elders 
of  the  Jews,  however,  were  indignant  at  the  marriage  of  one  of 
priestly  blood  with  a  foreigner,  and  demanded  that  Manasseh 
should  divorce  her.  He,  supposing  himself  to  be  next  in  suc- 
cession to  the  high-priesthood  (the  highest  dignity  in  Judea), 
told  his  father-in-law  that  though  he  loved  his  wife  he  was  not 
willing  on  her  account  to  be  shut  out  from  the  high-priesthood. 
On  this  representation  Sanballat  promised  Manasseh  that  he 
would  make  him  high-priest  and  governor  in  Samaria  and  would 
build  him  a  temple  on  Mount  Gerizim.  Manasseh  agreed  to 
this,  and  on  migrating  to  Samaria  was  joined  by  many  priests 
and  Levites  who  left  Jerusalem  because  of  the  proscription  of 
mixed  marriages.  So  far  Josephus.1 

The  Sanballat  of  this  account  is  doubtless  the  Horonite  who 
gave  Nehemiah  so  much  trouble.*  It  is  not  improbable  that  the 
quarrels  between  Nehemiah  and  the  country  party  led  to  a  defi- 
nite separation.  In  that  case  Josephus's  date  is  not  accurate. 
But  what  is  quite  certain  is  that  the  stringency  of  the  Jews  in 
Jerusalem  in  the  matter  of  foreign  alliances  led  to  the  formation 

1  The  story  (Neh.  13)  is  told  as  if  by  Nehemiah.  Bat  it  is  difficult  to  place 
it  in  his  memoirs  and  the  style  is  that  of  the  Chronicler. 

*  Josephus,  Antiquities,  XI,  8,  I. 

'Neh.  13*"  gives  Sanballat's  connexion  with  Eliashib;  a  daughter  ot  San- 
ballat  was  married  to  one  of  Eliashib's  grandsons. 


4OO  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

of  the  Samaritan  community.  Each  party  was  sure  that  it  was 
the  true  Israel  and  the  people  of  Yahweh.  When  the  Temple  at 
Jerusalem  was  closed  to  all  who  could  not  prove  their  genealogy 
or  who  would  not  subscribe  to  the  new  regulations,  those  who  were 
shut  out  were  obliged  to  organise  about  another  centre.  Mount 
Gerizim  naturally  suggested  itself.  It  was  an  ancient  sanctuary,  as 
is  evident  from  the  way  it  is  treated  in  the  book  of  Deuteronomy. 
As  a  sanctuary  of  Yahweh  it  could  claim  greater  antiquity  than 
the  one  at  Jerusalem.  There  was  no  reason  why  this  might  not 
be  a  second  Jerusalem  with  a  Temple  rivalling  the  other.  So 
the  schism  became  fixed  and  incurable,  and  the  hatred  of  one 
sect  for  the  other  was  as  bitter  as  the  hatred  of  brothers  estranged 
usually  is.  But  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  Samaritans  were 
Jews  to  all  intents  and  purposes.1  They  even  adopted  the  Law 
in  the  form  in  which  it  is  recorded  in  the  Pentateuch  and  ob- 
served its  precepts,  though  rejecting  the  later  Rabbinical  refine- 
ments. 

What  has  been  said  about  Ezra  shows  that  the  account  given 
of  the  introduction  of  the  Law  by  him  belongs  in  the  category 
of  legend  rather  than  fact.  But  the  great  historical  fact  remains 
that  in  this  period  the  codification  of  ancient  customs  and  regu- 
lations reached  its  conclusion.1  The  result  was  the  highly  com- 
posite and  perplexing  work  which  we  call  the  Pentateuch.  Cer- 
tain elements  of  this  book  have  already  been  considered.  In  its 
final  form  it  included  as  part  of  itself  the  ancient  Covenant  Code, 
the  patriarchal  history  which  we  have  called  J  E,  the  enlarged 
book  of  Deuteronomy,  and  the  Holiness  Code,  which  shows  the 
influence  of  Ezekiel.  What  is  left  after  separating  these  earlier 
documents  represents  several  stages  of  development.  We  have  no 
difficulty  in  recognising  one  hand  in  the  historical  work  which  is 
usually  assigned  to  a  priestly  writer,8  and  which  furnished  the 
framework  into  which  the  earlier  documents  were  fitted.  Its 
peculiarities  have  already  been  considered  in  the  early  chapters 

1  Rabbinical  recognition  of  the  difference  between  Samaritans  and  heathen 
is  pointed  out  by  Schtlrer,  Gesch.  d.  Jud.  Volkes?  II.  p.  17$. 

1  Or  at  least  reached  a  provisional  conclusion.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  process  of  legal  development  went  on,  and  in  principle  there  is  no 
dividing  line  between  the  Tora  and  the  Mishna. 

•And  is  therefore  usually  designated  as  P.  It  is  not  so  certain  as  has 
been  supposed,  that  the  historical  sketch  was  composed  as  an  introduction 
to  a  code. 


NEHEMIAH   AND  AFTER  4OI 

of  the  present  history.1  We  need  only  recall  that  P  rewrote  the 
narrative  of  the  creation,  the  deluge,  the  patriarchs,  the  exodus, 
and  the  wandering,  with  the  idea  of  displacing  the  earlier  stories 
which  were  in  many  respects  distasteful  to  him.  In  doing  this 
his  purpose  is  to  give  the  correct  view  of  God,  who  is  to  him 
spiritual  and  transcendental.  He  therefore  avoids  the  anthropo- 
morphisms of  his  predecessors.  He  also  desires  to  mark  the 
stages  of  exclusion  by  which  Israel  came  to  be  the  true  people  of 
Yahweh.  Beginning  with  the  creation  and  passing  rapidly  to 
the  Deluge  he  narrows  his  view  to  Abraham,  and  in  the  famiry 
of  Abraham  dismisses  first  Ishmael  and  then  Esau,  so  as  to  con- 
fine his  view  to  Jacob.  That  his  picture  of  the  patriarchs  re- 
veals no  sins  on  their  part  has  already  been  remarked,  as  also 
that  the  result  is  to  give  us  figures  without  life  and  scenes  with- 
out colour.  That  he  emphasises  genealogies  and  chronologies 
shows  a  tendency  prominent  in  later  Judaism,  as  is  illustrated  by 
the  book  of  Chronicles. 

One  thing  interested  the  priestly  writer,  however,  and  that 
was  the  origin  of  Israel's  institutions.  The  account  of  the  crea- 
tion, as  he  gives  it,  culminates  in  the  Sabbath.  It  is  not  so 
much  that  he  thinks  the  Sabbath  obligatory  on  all  mankind  (for 
he  gives  no  command  for  its  observance),  as  that  he  conceives  of 
God  Himself  as  obedient  to  the  Law.1  The  Deluge  culminates 
in  a  covenant  with  Noah,  sealed  by  the  rainbow,  and  embracing 
the  prohibition  of  blood  as  food.  Here  we  can  have  no  doubt 
that  the  author  enacts  a  law  for  all  mankind.  It  is  interesting  to 
note  that  he  does  not  command  sacrifice.  Sacrifice  was  intro- 
duced (according  to  his  theory)  by  the  commands  given  at 
Sinai  and  was  lawful  only  at  the  single  sanctuary  of  Israel. 
Therefore  he  gives  mankind  permission  to  slay  and  eat,  only  for- 
bidding the  use  of  the  blood.  With  the  prohibition  of  blood, 
he  also  supposes  the  death  penalty  for  murder  to  have  been  in- 
troduced. In  fact  the  institution  of  blood-revenge  is  one  of 
the  earliest  of  social  customs. 

In  the  patriarchal  period,  the  author  thinks  it  worth  while  to 
dwell  upon  two  incidents  only.  The  first  is  the  custom  of  circum- 
cision. This  is  solemnly  enjoined  as  a  seal  of  the  covenant  with 
Abraham.  The  author  probably  knew  of  the  observance  of  this 

'Above,  pp.  ii,  12,  31.  35. 

1  Parallels  in  the  literature  of  later  Judaism  are  well  known. 


4O2  OLD   TESTAMENT    HISTORY 

rite  among  what  we  may  call  the  Abrahamic  peoples.  The  second 
is  the  purchase  of  the  cave  of  Machpelah  by  Abraham  from  the 
people  of  the  land.  It  seems  almost  as  if  he  were  asserting 
Israel's  right  to  the  ancient  burial-place  of  the  patriarchs  as 
against  the  Edomites,  or  at  least  as  if  he  were  asserting  Israel's 
equal  right  with  the  Edomites.  Among  all  the  sacred  places 
of  the  land  outside  Jerusalem,  this  is  the  only  one  in  which  the 
author  has  an  interest.  From  his  predecessors  he  takes  the  ac- 
count ot  Yahweh's  revelation  of  His  name  to  Moses,  and  the  in- 
stitution of  the  Passover  at  the  exodus.  In  connexion  with 
the  latter  he  ordains  the  reform  of  the  calendar.1  His  use  of  the 
miracles  in  Egypt  has  been  already  commented  upon.  The  gift 
of  manna,  which  is  placed  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  wander- 
ing, is  made  the  occasion  for  emphasising  anew  the  observance 
of  the  Sabbath. 

Most  characteristic  of  this  author  is  the  elaborate  provision 
made  for  the  sanctuary.  The  idea  that  Yahweh  dwelt  among 
His  people  even  in  the  wilderness  is  old.  The  earlier  history 
speaks  of  the  Tent  of  Meeting  which  Moses  pitched  outside  the 
camp.1  Possibly  the  Ark  was  a  still  earlier  provision  for  Yah- 
weh's journey.  But  the  priestly  writer  was  not  content  without 
making  the  Dwelling  a  worthy  one,  according  to  later  ideas. 
It  was  not  difficult  to  argue  that  the  holiness  of  Yahweh  should 
be  guarded  in  the  wilderness  as  strictly  as  it  was  afterward 
guarded  in  Jerusalem.  Hence  he  makes  Moses  on  the  mount, 
first  receive  the  command  to  make  the  Tabernacle,  with  elaborate 
specifications — just  as  Ezekiel  began  his  reconstructed  common- 
wealth with  a  plan  of  the  new  Temple. 

It  would  be  sacrilegious  to  suppose  that  a  more  perfect  plan 
could  be  devised  for  the  Dwelling  than  the  one  revealed  to  Solo- 
mon and  afterward  substantially  duplicated  in  the  vision  vouch- 
safed to  Ezekiel.  This  plan  therefore  our  author  took  and 
showed  considerable  ingenuity  in  making  on  its  lines  a  movable 
instead  of  a  stationary  structure.  The  Tabernacle  of  his  devis- 
ing is,  in  fact,  the  shadow  of  the  Temple  thrown  upon  the  back- 
ground of  the  desert  life.  It  has  its  inner  chamber,  the  private 
apartment  of  the  divinity.  This  is  made  of  beams  ingeniously 
fitted  together  to  make  a  cubical  room — the  shape  was  that  of 

1  This  is  really  dating  postexilic  usage  back  to  the  time  of  Moses. 
'Ex.  337-»  (E),  Num.  ii»,  12*. 


NEHEMIAH  AND  AFTER  403 

the  Most  Holy  in  the  Temple,  only  here  the  dimensions  are  half 
those  of  Solomon's  building.  Within  this  room  the  Ark  is 
placed.  In  the  description  of  this  long-lost  palladium  it  was 
easy  to  overlay  it  with  gold,  and  for  the  two  gigantic  cherubim 
of  Solomon  to  give  it  two  small  ones  of  gold  overshadowing  the 
cover.  This  central  room  being  provided,  it  was  only  logical  to 
make  the  anteroom  with  its  table  of  bread  and  its  candelabrum. 
Heavy  curtains,  the  inner  of  fine  texture,  the  outer  of  leather, 
cover  the  whole  structure.  Around  all  is  a  court  fenced  off  by 
curtains  stretched  upon  posts,  to  keep  the  area  sacred  from  in- 
trusion. For  the  sacrificial  worship  a  copper  altar  is  provided, 
or  rather,  one  of  wood  overlaid  with  metal.1 

Such  a  sanctuary  must  be  provided  with  a  corps  of  attendants. 
For  the  priesthood  (in  the  narrower  sense)  Aaron  and  his  sons  are 
chosen.  Elaborate  vestments  are  wrought  for  them.  The  first 
act  of  sacrificial  service  in  the  history  of  Israel — and  so  the  first 
legitimate  sacrifice  in  the  history  of  the  world — is  the  offering  by 
which  Moses  consecrates  them  to  the  priesthood.  Only  after  the 
provision  of  this  elaborate  sanctuary  does  Moses  receive  the  two 
tables  which  are  the  sign  of  the  covenant  and  which  are  to  repose 
in  the  Ark.  And  only  after  the  consecration  of  the  priests  is  the 
ritual  law  given  to  the  people.1  The  first  act  of  the  newly  con- 
secrated priests  is  to  offer  the  sacrifice  which  makes  the  people 
ritually  fit  to  approach  God.  But  the  danger  of  an  unacceptable 
service  is  set  before  us  by  the  fate  of  Nadab  and  Abihu,  two  of 
Aaron's  sons.  By  an  act  of  criminal  carelessness  they  "offered 
strange  fire"  in  their  censers  and  were  smitten  by  a  fire  from 
Yahweh  so  that  they  died.1  The  incident  is  made  the  occasion 
for  regulating  the  manner  of  Aaron's  entrance  into  the  sanctuary.* 

Aaron  and  his  sons  having  been  consecrated,  it  is  time  to  intro- 
duce the  Levites,  their  subordinates  and  helpers.  Our  narrative 

1  How  far  these  devices  would  be  practicable  if  the  endeavour  were  made 
to  use  them  as  working  directions  '.s  a  question  that  did  not  much  trouble  the 
author  and  need  not  detain  us. 

1  Recent  commentators  have  shown  that  the  account  of  the  actual  building 
of  the  Sanctuary  (Ex.  35-40)  is  a  very  late  insertion  of  the  narrative.  That 
we  have  several  strata  of  P  to  deal  with,  is  clear  from  the  duplication  of  the 
command  for  Aaron's  consecration  ( Ex.  29,  and  Lev.  8). 

'  Ler.  10  >•*.  The  only  sin  of  the  two  men  seems  to  have  been  that  they 
took  fire  from  somewhere  else  than  the  altar. 

,,  16,    Tbc  chapter  has  been  worked  ever  more  than  once. 


404  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

therefore  tells  of  the  choice  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  for  this  purpose 
They  were  substituted  for  the  first-born  males  of  Israel,  to  which 
Yahweh  had  a  claim  since  the  exodus.1  The  congregation  is 
now  prepared  to  take  up  its  march  and  soon  comes  to  the  border 
of  the  promised  land.  Here  the  obstinacy  of  the  people  comes 
out  in  their  refusal  to  invade  the  country.  No  sooner  is  this 
matter  settled  than  a  band  of  Levites  headed  by  Korah  claims 
priestly  prerogatives  and  presumes  to  offer  incense.  In  this  act 
they  are  smitten  by  the  avenging  fire  of  Yahweh.1  Not  long 
after  this  the  congregation  murmur  again  at  Moses  and  Aaron, 
and  these  two  leaders  are  betrayed  into  sinful  impatience.  This 
shows  that  they  have  reached  the  end  of  their  usefulness.  Aaron 
dies  at  Mount  Hor  after  Eleazar  has  been  inducted  into  his 
office.5  A  few  days  later,  when  the  border  of  Canaan  is  reached, 
Moses  is  directed  to  take  a  look  at  the  Promised  Land.  At  his 
request  Joshua  is  appointed  as  his  successor,  being  confirmed  by 
Eleazar.  Moses  ascends  Mount  Nebo  and  there  ends  his  career.4 
As  we  are  here  concerned  with  the  formation  of  the  Jewish 
book  of  the  Law  we  may  leave  to  one  side  questions  concerning 
the  conclusion  of  P's  narrative.  Undoubtedly  the  author  went 
on  to  describe  the  conquest  and  division  of  the  land.  But  the 
compiler  of  the  book  of  Joshua  did  not  make  this  narrative  the 
basis  of  his  work  in  the  same  way  as  did  the  compiler  of  the  first 
five  books.  This  editor  took  the  history  of  P  and  made  it  the 
framework  into  which  with  commendable  piety  he  fitted  the 
other  documents  of  which  we  have  spoken.  He,  or  his  school, 
also  supplemented  the  legislation  already  in  their  hands  with 
such  fragments  of  tradition  as  they  could  discover  not  yet  pub- 
lished. These  fragments  preserve  for  us  some  ancient  customs, 
so  that  we  find  united  in  this  code  institutions  and  observances 
representing  all  stages  of  Israel's  religious  development  except 
the  polytheistic.  The  interest  of  the  final  redactor,  or  school  of 

1  Num.  3  *~18.  The  analysis  in  these  early  chapters  of  Numbers  presents 
peculiar  difficulties.  I  have  followed,  in  the  main,  Carpenter  and  Battersby, 
The  Jfexateuch. 

1  Num.  19.  The  account  of  Korah  is  now  fused  with  that  of  Dathan  and 
Abiram. 

•/Aid.,  20»-l»,  "-». 

4  The  original  order  was  Deut.  32  48-M,  Num.  27  15~ts,  Deut.  34.  This 
order  was  necessarily  disarranged  when  Deuteronomy  was  inserted  as  the 
testament  of  Moses. 


NEHEMIAH   AND   AFTER  405 

redactors,  was  to  make  of  Israel  the  church-nation,  separate  as 
far  as  possible  from  secular  affairs  and  wholly  consecrated  to 
Yahweh.  The  sanctity  of  the  people  is  guarded  not  alone  by  the 
provisions  of  the  Holiness  Code.  These  are  extended  and  made 
more  rigid.  The  defilement  which  may  be  contracted  from  un- 
clean animals,  from  childbirth,  from  leprosy  and  other  diseases 
is  defined,  and  directions  are  given  for  its  treatment.  The  in- 
terest of  the  author  is  not  sanitary  but  religious.  He  gives  no 
directions  for  the  medical  treatment  of  leprosy  (for  example), 
but  he  is  very  stern  in  shutting  the  leper  out  of  the  congregation, 
because  his  presence  there  is  an  offence  to  Yahweh's  holiness. 

A  curious  example  of  the  way  in  which  ancient  religious  ideas 
have  been  carried  over  into  these  new  and  strenuous  regulations 
is  seen  in  the  law  for  the  great  Day  of  Atonement.  In  order 
that  the  sacredness  of  the  people  may  be  kept  intact  it  is  enjoined 
that  once  a  year  there  shall  be  an  expiation  made  to  cover  what- 
ever defilement  may  not  have  been  purged  by  the  ordinary  ser- 
vices. Besides  the  sacrifices  appropriate  to  such  a  day  we  have 
the  command  for  the  scapegoat.1  This  is  a  goat  laden  (sym- 
bolically) with  the  sins  of  the  people  and  then  sent  off  into  the 
wilderness  for  Azaztl,  that  is,  for  one  of  the  wilderness  demons 
which  the  people  formerly  worshipped.1 

Some  other  archaic  features  of  this  code  are  of  interest  here. 
Among  them  we  are  tempted  to  count  the  specific  permission  to 
offer  doves  at  the  altar.  The  dove  was  anciently  sacred  to  As- 
tarte,  and  we  should  expect  it  to  be  taboo  to  the  worshippers  of 
Yahweh.  Not  to  lay  stress  upon  this,  we  may  justifiably  pause 
at  the  bells  and  pomegranates  of  the  high-priest's  robe.  The 
pomegranates  are  certainly  a  relic  of  early  heathenism,  and  the 
bells  which  notify  Yahweh  of  the  minister's  approach  (for  so 
we  must  account  for  their  use)  do  not  accord  with  the  postexilic 
theory  of  God's  spirituality  and  omniscience.  More  striking  is 
the  jealousy  ordeal  which  is  conserved  for  us  in  the  ritual.  It 
is  plain  that  the  curses  which  are  written  out  and  then  washed 
into  the  water  which  the  woman  drinks  are  regarded  as  materi- 

1 1  retain  the  ordinary  term  because  I  do  not  know  any  better  one  to  sub- 
stitute. The  law  for  the  Day  is  found  in  Lev.  16,  imbedded  in  the  general 
directions  for  Aaron's  entrance  into  the  Sanctuary. 

*  The  sections  which  mention  Azazel  are  a  later  insertion  in  the  text  of  P. 
But  it  is  evident  that  they  represent  very  ancient  usage. 


406  OLD  TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

ally  conveyed  into  the  woman's  body  where  they  work  magi- 
cally upon  her.1  The  Nazirites  who  are  mentioned  in  the  im- 
mediate sequel  also  represent  an  early  stage  of  Israel's  religion. 

We  should  misunderstand  the  priestly  writers  were  we  to  sup- 
pose them  compiling  a  manual  for  the  priestly  caste.  They  are 
fully  imbued  with  the  notion  that  correct  performance  of  the 
sacred  rites  is  necessary  to  the  well-being  of  Israel — not  alone  for 
the  Jews  in  Palestine,  but  for  those  in  Babylonia  as  well.  So 
long  as  the  cultus  was  carried  on,  they  could  be  sure  of  the 
favour  of  Yahweh ;  should  it  be  interrupted  or  be  desecrated  no 
Jew  could  rest  in  security.  The  book  of  the  Law  was  intended 
to  inform  the  people  not  only  how  they  must  live  themselves  but 
how  the  priests  must  carry  on  the  service.  The  result  was  to 
make  the  laymen  the  sharpest  critics  of  the  priests.  The  result- 
ing bitterness  of  the  Pharisees  against  careless  priests  is  a  well- 
known  feature  of  the  later  history.  In  this  view  of  the  cultus  we 
miss  the  spontaneity  of  the  earlier  documents.  The  sacrificial 
system  was  originally  man's  natural  expression  of  his  feeling 
toward  God.  To  eat  and  drink  and  rejoice  before  Yahweh  was 
a  ritual  that  needed  no  exhortation  and  which  received  little 
regulation.  The  postexilic  time  had  really  outgrown  such  ex- 
pressions of  piety.  God  was  greater,  more  spiritual,  and  farther 
away  than  He  had  seemed  to  be  in  the  earlier  time.  The  cultus 
had  become  a  thing  ordained  by  Him  as  the  expression  of  His 
will ;  therefore  it  must  be  punctiliously  performed.  We  may 
almost  imagine  its  most  devoted  supporters  sometimes  wishing 
that  God  had  been  pleased  to  enjoin  some  other  method  of 
serving  Him. 

If  the  elaborate  service  of  the  sanctuary  is  to  be  regularly 
performed  the  order  of  ministers  must  be  worthily  supported. 
It  was  not  because  the  men  whom  we  have  called  the  priestly 
writers  were  themselves  priests  that  they  so  carefully  regulated 
the  tithes  and  other  sources  of  Levitical  income.  Probably  the 
writers  were  not  themselves  members  of  the  guild  whose  in- 
terests they  had  so  much  at  heart.  They  were  laymen  who  felt 
that  the  service  of  the  sanctuary  was  the  most  important  thing  in 
the  world.  All  the  weight  of  tradition  in  favour  of  giving  tithes 

1  Num.  5 11"SI.  I  do  not  mean  that  this  regulation  is  of  heathen  origin, 
but  that  it  represents  the  early  religion  of  Israel.  A  parallel  is  found  in 
Egyptian  religion,  cf.  Wiedemann,  Religion  of  the  Ancient  Egyptians,  p.  58. 


NEHEMIAH   AND   AFTER  4O/ 

and  first-fruits  and  a  share  of  the  offerings  to  the  priests  was 
therefore  emphasised  by  them.  The  result  was  to  lay  upon  Israel 
a  yoke  which  no  people  could  long  bear.  But  no  considerations 
of  mere  expediency  influenced  the  consistent  theorists  with  which 
we  now  have  to  do. 

In  one  respect,  however,  we  must  modify  what  has  been  said 
about  the  cultus.  There  was,  no  doubt,  a  real  religious  feeling 
expressed  in  the  sin-offerings  which  had  now  become  so  promi- 
nent. The  theory  that  the  whole  Law  must  be  thoroughly  and 
scrupulously  obeyed  had  as  its  result  the  depressing  conviction 
that  this  was  an  almost  impossible  task.  Every  hour  of  the  day  a 
man  was  subject  to  contagion.  Any  moment  of  carelessness  might 
cause  him  to  forget  some  one  of  the  regulations  of  his  code.  For 
intentional  violation  of  the  Law  there  was  nothing  but  punishment, 
either  excommunication  from  the  chosen  people  or  visitation  by 
an  act  of  God.  But  what  should  be  done  in  case  of  uninten- 
tional sin?  This  sin  was  truly  sin,  it  was  an  offence  against  the 
sanctity  of  God  ;  it  might  work  ruin,  not  only  upon  the  guilty 
party,  but  also  upon  all  his  race.  Fortunately  a  class  of  offerings 
had  existed  from  of  old  (though  not  emphasised  in  the  pre-exilic 
time)  whose  effect  was  to  appease  the  anger  of  God.  These  now 
become  prominent  in  the  service  and  it  is  provided  that  they 
may  be  offered  by  individuals  who  discover  or  who  suspect  their 
own  neglect.  It  is  provided  also  that  they  shall  be  offered  on 
stated  occasions,  to  make  amends  for  the  possible  carelessness  of 
priests  and  people.  It  follows  that  the  system  of  the  completed 
Law  is  on  the  whole  sombre  in  its  tone.  In  this  it  no  doubt 
reflects  the  prevailing  mood  of  post-exilic  Israel.  For,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  experiences  of  exile  and  of  oppression  had  fostered  just 
this  frame  of  mind.1 

It  is  partly  because  of  the  sorrowful  experiences  of  the  present 
that  the  priestly  school  finds  its  ideal  in  the  past.  In  their  view 
Israel  in  the  wilderness  possessed  the  strength  and  majesty  which 
should  belong  to  the  people  of  God.  The  organization  of  the 
twelve  tribes,  each  with  fifty  thousand  warriors,  more  or  less,  is 

1  How  far  Babylonian  influence  can  be  traced  in  the  Priest-code  is  not 
vet  satisfactorily  made  out.  It  would  be  strange  not  to  find  some  such  influ- 
ence ;  cf.  Haupt  in  the  Johns  Hopkins  University  Circulars,  May,  1900, 
and  in  the  Journal  of  Bib.  Lit.  XIX,  pp.  55-81  ;  also  JCtilinsfhrtften  untj 
Aitei  Testament*  p.  589  f. 


4Q8  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

complete.  When  they  march  they  move  like  an  army  with  ban 
ners,  and  when  they  camp,  they  camp  in  perfect  order  in  a  square 
whose  centre  is  the  Tabernacle.  Next  to  the  sanctuary  is  the 
tribe  of  Levi  to  guard  it  from  profanation,  and  this  tribe  has  its 
standing  orders  concerning  the  removal  and  carriage  of  the  sacred 
tent.1  All  this  embellishment  of  the  history  has  no  direct  prac- 
tical value.  It  only  expresses  the  conviction  that  in  some  sense 
the  wilderness  sojourn  was  the  golden  age  of  Israel's  life.  There 
at  any  rate  the  theocracy  was  in  full  sway.  When  that  should 
again  be  the  case  there  would  be  room  for  another  forward  move 
in  history.  For  the  authors  had  a  dim  idea  of  progress.  Their 
world  periods  are  marked  by  the  Deluge  and  the  exodus.  But 
within  the  periods  there  is  no  movement.  Evidently  all  that 
can  be  done  in  the  present  time  is  to  conserve  the  system  in- 
troduced by  Moses  at  its  beginning.  During  the  period  now 
under  review  the  stricter  party  in  Jerusalem  were  holding  on  to 
the  observance  of  the  Law  with  the  idea  that  they  were  thus  liv- 
ing up  to  the  perfect  standard  set  by  Yahweh  Himself.  In  this 
observance  they  found  comfort  and  satisfaction  under  manifold 
afflictions.  Doubtless  the  more  ritually  inclined  found  in  the 
Law  the  complete  response  to  their  soul's  need.  But  others  were 
meanwhile  cherishing  the  Messianic  hope  and  searching  the 
prophetic  writings  which  had  come  down  from  earlier  times. 
We  shall  not  go  astray,  in  fact,  if  we  locate  in  this  period  the  col- 
lection into  one  corpus  of  the  books,  Joshua  to  Malachi,  which 
form  the  second  part  of  the  Jewish  canon." 

In  this  collection  is  a  little  book  which  probably  originated  in 
this  time  and  which  throws  light  upon  the  mind  of  the  people. 
This  is  the  book  which  bears  the  name  of  Joel.  Its  immediate 
occasion  is  a  plague  of  locusts  such  as  often  devastates  the  lands 
bordering  on  the  desert.  In  animated  language  the  author  de- 
scribes the  invading  host  and  calls  the  people  to  lament  over  its 
desolating  career.  In  sharp  contrast  to  the  theory  of  the  earlier 
prophets  he  lays  emphasis  upon  fasting  and  sackcloth  as  means  of 
influencing  Yahweh.  The  priests  are  urged  to  lead  in  the  suppli- 
cation— evidence  of  their  present  importance  in  the  community. 

1  Num.  7  and  10.  The  regulations  belong  to  the  latest  stratum  of  priestly 
legislation. 

*  One  or  two  sections  which  bear  marks  of  a  later  date  will  be  considered 
soon. 


NFHEMIAH  AND  AFTER  409 

The  description  of  the  plague  shows  that  the  author  identifies 
it  with  the  invasion  of  Gog  predicted  by  Ezekiel.  The  prayers 
of  the  people  (united  at  the  Temple)  are  effective  with  Yahweh. 
He  inclines  to  His  people  and  removes  the  plague  from  them. 
Renewed  and  increased  fruitfulness  will  recompense  them  for 
the  years  which  the  locust  has  eaten. 

The  great  invasion  is  looked  upon  as  the  forerunner  of  the 
Day  of  Yahweh.  After  the  plague  has  been  removed  the  Mes- 
sianic time  will  come.  The  Spirit — the  incentive  to  prophecy — 
will  be  poured  out  upon  all  flesh.  Men-servants  and  maid-servants 
shall  partake  of  the  wonderful  endowment.  The  extraordinary 
manifestations  of  the  Spirit  will  moreover  be  ushered  in  by  con- 
vulsions of  nature — blood  and  fire  and  columns  of  smoke.  Yah- 
weh will  muster  all  nations  in  the  Valley  of  Judgment,1  and  call 
them  to  strict  account  for  their  oppression  of  Israel.  With  what 
measure  they  have  meted  it  shall  be  measured  to  them.  Judah 
will  now  take  possession  of  the  Gentiles  and  sell  them  as  slaves 
to  the  far  countries.  Or  in  another  figure  borrowed  from  an  earlier 
prophet,  Yahweh  is  presented  as  the  treader  of  grapes ;  the  nations 
are  the  vintage  and  He  will  crush  them  as  the  grapes  are  crushed 
in  the  wine-press.  After  the  judgment,  Judah  will  dwell  safely, 
and  Jerusalem  shall  be  uncontaminated  by  the  Gentiles.  Palestine 
will  abound  in  wine  and  milk,  but  Egypt  shall  be  a  desolation 
and  Edom  shall  lie  waste. 

The  Messianic  expectation  has  here  become  almost  stereotyped. 
Vengeance  is  to  be  taken  on  the  heathen ;  Judah  is  to  have  a 
golden  age  of  agriculture ;  prophecy  is  not  to  be  monopolised 
by  the  select  few — these  features  are  all  that  stand  out  distinctly. 
The  personal  Messiah  does  not  appear  at  all.  Moreover,  there  is 
no  thought  of  a  great  moral  reformation.  There  is,  to  be  sure,  a 
call  to  repentance,  fasting,  and  mourning.  But  we  feel  that  this 
is  only  because  these  spiritual  exercises  are  the  traditional  way  of 
approaching  Yahweh.  The  people  are  conscious  that  they  are 
living  in  accordance  with  the  Law  and  are  the  people  of  Yahweh. 
Of  the  conversion  of  the  heathen  there  seems  to  be  no  thought. 
The  Gentile  nations  are  brought  into  judgment  simply  that  they 

1  The  valley  of  Jehoshaphat  appears  here  for  the  first  time.  Doubtless 
the  name  ( Yahweh  judges)  was  coined  by  Joel.  That  he  locates  the  great 
judgment  at  Jerusalem  is  probable,  and  to  this  extent  the  application  of  the 
name  to  the  Kedron  is  justified. 


4IO  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

may  be  destroyed  and  that  Judah  may  be  no  more  molested. 
The  author  seems  to  look  for  the  Day  of  Yahweh  in  the  im- 
mediate future.  Yet  there  is  a  certain  pallor  about  the  expecta- 
tion. We  feel  that  there  will  be  no  acute  disappointment  should 
there  be  delay.  The  people  are  not  ambitious  for  great  things. 
If  only  the  locust  and  the  drought  can  be  removed  they  will  be 
fairly  content  to  go  on  as  they  are.  They  have  no  desire  to  be- 
come a  world-power.  The  mood  is  that  of  a  small  and  exclusive 
sect — enjoying  their  snug  exclusiveness  and  willing  to  let  the 
world  ignore  them  if  only  they  can  be  undisturbed. 

The  idea  of  the  judgment  of  the  nations  here  adopted,  or  ex- 
panded, from  Ezekiel,  is  a  common  theme  of  later  apocalyptic 
writers.  Not  long  after  the  writer  we  have  just  considered,  it 
was  borne  in  afresh  upon  men's  minds.  The  Persian  monarchy 
was  showing  signs  of  decay.  The  invasion  of  the  heart  of  the 
empire  by  Cyrus  the  Younger  and  the  retreat  of  the  ten  thou- 
sand Greeks  revealed  an  unsuspected  weakness.  Egypt  soon 
stirred  Syria  to  revolt  and  the  flames  of  war  again  passed  over 
Palestine.  Under  Artaxerxes  Ochus  (B.C.  361-336)  an  im- 
mense army  flooded  Phoenicia  and  Egypt,  working  havoc  wher- 
ever it  went.  Whether  Jerusalem  had  taken  part  in  the  revolt 
is  not  clear.  Josephus,  who  tells  us  that  Bagoses,  the  Persian 
general,  desecrated  the  Temple,  does  not  speak  of  any  injury 
done  to  the  Temple  or  the  city  walls.  He  says  only  that 
Bagoses  punished  the  Jews  by  imposing  a  tax  on  the  daily 
sacrifices.1 

These  events  stimulated  the  apocalyptic  imagination  of  the 
Jews,  and  they  saw  again  in  the  swift  invader  the  advance  guard 
of  the  great  Day.  Recent  scholars  *  find  a  monument  of  these 
disturbances  in  the  latest  section  of  the  book  of  Isaiah — chapters 
24-27.  The  chapters  take  up  and  expand  Joel's  picture  of  the 
judgment  of  the  nations.  Yahweh  is  represented  desolating  the 
earth  ;  people  and  priest,  servant  and  master,  buyer  and  seller 
are  involved  in  a  common  fate.  Wrath  shall  be  poured  out,  not 
only  on  the  kings  of  the  earth,  but  also  upon  the  heavenly  host 
— the  angels  who  were  appointed  to  administer  the  affairs  of  the 

'Josephus  (Ant.  XI,  7,  l)  makes  the  occasion  of  Bagoses'  invasion  to  be 
a  quarrel  about  the  high-priesthood. 

*  Preceded  by  Vatke ;  cf.  Cheyne,  Introduction  to  the  Book  of  Isaiah,  p. 
1 60. 


NEHEMIAH  AND  AFTER  411 

world  and  who  have  been  unfaithful.1  But  the  dispersed  of  Judah 
are  to  be  spared — a  remnant  like  the  olives  left  on  the  tree  after 
the  crop  has  been  gathered.  These  shall  see  the  new  day,  the 
rule  of  Yahweh  on  Mount  Zion : 

"  On  this  mountain  will  Yahweh  Sabaoth  make  to  all  peoples 
A  feast  of  fat  things,  a  feast  of  wine  on  the  lees. 
Of  fat  things  full  of  marrow,  of  wine  on  the  lees  well  strained. 
On  this  mountain  will  He  annihilate 
The  veil  which  veils  all  peoples, 
The  covering  which  covers  all  nations  : 
Yea,  the  Lord  Yahweh  will  wipe  away  tears  from  all  faces, 
And  the  reproach  of  His  people  will  He  take  away  throughout  all 
the  earth."  • 

This  expectation  differs  from  any  we  have  yet  met  in  the  pa- 
thetic expression :  "  Yahweh  will  wipe  away  tears  from  all  faces" 
— a  hope  that  has  passed  over  into  Christian  literature.  As  we 
read  it  we  ask  ourselves  :  Can  it  be  any  earthly  clime  in  which 
this  hope  is  to  be  realised  ?  Is  not  the  Messianic  kingdom  cut- 
ting loose  from  earth  and  seeking  its  habitation  in  another  world  ? 
Certainly  the  way  is  preparing  for  the  celestial  city. 

Reviewing  the  period  whose  history  we  have  now  tried  to 
trace,  we  are  impressed  again  with  the  importance  of  Nehe- 
miah  and  his  work.  Without  him  the  separation  of  the  stricter 
party  would  not  have  been  accomplished,  or  else  the  party 
would  have  lacked  staying  power  and  have  been  ground  to 
pieces  by  the  adverse  tendencies  of  the  times.  The  separation 
once  accomplished,  the  prominence  of  the  Law  and  its  ex- 
pansion followed  as  a  matter  of  course.  The  Law  in  turn 
strengthened  the  party  which  cherished  it,  and  made  their  ex- 
clusiveness  more  marked.  The  religious  emotions  easily  learn  to 
express  themselves  in  the  forms  hallowed  by  tradition  and  sanc- 
tioned by  a  divine  command.  While  the  legalism  which  we 
find  fully  fledged  at  the  end  of  the  period  may  sometimes  have 
fostered  formalism  and  hypocrisy,  this  was  by  no  means  univer- 
sally true.  The  Psalms  show  how  many  a  pious  soul  learned  to 
delight  in  the  Law  of  Yahweh  after  the  inward  man.  To  such 

1  The  conception  that  the  angels  have  been  appointed  satraps  of  the  prov- 
inces under  Yahweh's  rule,  is  found  in  some  other  late  passages,  and  is  more 
fully  developed  in  the  book  of  Daniel. 

•  Isaiah,  25  •-•  ;  Cheyne's  translation. 


412  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

souls  it  was  a  boon  to  have  prescribed  forms  in  which  to  express 
their  devotion — this  is  illustrated  in  other  religions  besides 
Judaism.  For  a  time  of  temporal  ill-fortune  it  is  a  comfort  to 
have  one's  thoughts  turned  to  what  may  be  done  for  God.  And 
that  this  will  of  God  was  in  a  book  was  also  a  boon  to  the  op- 
pressed and  heavy  laden.  Study  is  the  solace  of  many  an  ach- 
ing heart.  By  attending  to  the  sacred  Book  the  mind  learns  to 
detach  itself  from  the  cares  of  this  life  and  fix  itself  upon  what  be- 
longs to  God.  In  the  period  under  review  the  external  fortune 
of  the  Jews  was  at  a  low  ebb.  Complaints  of  oppression,  of  per- 
secution, of  the  scoffing  of  the  proud,  are  almost  a  common-place 
of  the  Psalms,  many  of  which  date  from  this  period.  But  along 
with  these  complaints  we  find  testimonies  that  God  is  near  the 
humble  and  that  He  sustains  those  who  trust  in  Him.  In  this 
experience  the  pious  found  the  reward  of  obedience,  though  this 
reward  was  not  the  one  upon  which  they  had  fixed  their  hopes. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 

THE   GREEK   PERIOD 

ALEXANDER  of  Macedon  defeated  the  Persian  army  at  Issus  in 
the  year  333  B.C.  To  break  the  naval  power  of  his  adversary  it 
was  necessary  for  him  to  get  full  possession  of  the  Syrian  coast. 
He  therefore  marched  at  once  toward  Egypt,  making  everything 
secure  as  he  went.  At  only  two  points  was  there  opposition — 
at  Tyre  and  at  Gaza,  both  which  cities  had  furnished  contingents 
to  the  Persian  fleet.  Tyre  fell  after  an  obstinate  resistance  of 
seven  months.  The  length  of  the  siege  of  Gaza  is  given  at  two 
months.  Thus  the  maritime  plain  was  in  Greek  possession  and, 
with  this  secure,  the  interior  of  Palestine  must  also  yield.  The 
cities  of  the  highland  can  hardly  have  been  of  much  importance. 
Jerusalem  was  no  longer  the  capital  of  the  country  in  any  sense. 
Its  wealth  had  long  departed  and  the  Arabian  trade,  once  ex- 
ploited by  Solomon,  now  went  to  the  Philistine  towns. 

A  Jewish  legend  preserved  by  Josephus  recounts  that  in  his 
progress  toward  Egypt  Alexander  sent  a  message  to  the  high- 
priest  summoning  him  to  acknowledge  his  new  master.  The 
high-priest  (the  story  correctly  represents  him  to  be  the  political 
head  of  the  community)  replied  that  his  allegiance  was  sworn 
to  Darius  and  that  to  him  he  would  be  true.  Alexander  there- 
fore marched  from  Gaza  to  punish  the  contumacious  city.  The 
high-priest's  loyalty  to  his  oath  was  of  no  very  enduring  quality. 
In  the  old  days  the  citizens  would  have  manned  the  walls  and 
stood  a  siege.  In  the  present  emergency  the  ruler  took  refuge  in 
spectacular  devices.  Warned  by  a  dream  he  arranged  a  proces- 
sion to  meet  the  king.  Without  arms  but  in  full  pontificals, 
accompanied  by  a  train  of  priests  and  citizens  all  clothed  in 
white,  he  marched  out  of  the  city  to  the  hill  (Scopus)  over 
which  the  conqueror  was  approaching.  Alexander,  to  the  sur- 
prise of  his  staff,  without  waiting  for  the  obeisance  of  the  ap- 
proaching train,  himself  did  obeisance  to  the  high-priest  and 
declared  that  this  was  the  figure  which  he  had  seen  in  a  dream 

4X3 


4H  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

early  in  his  career  and  which  had  promised  him  the  dominion  of 
Asia.  In  consequence  of  the  interview  he  showed  favour  to  the 
city,  offered  sacrifice  in  the  Temple,  and  exempted  the  people 
from  paying  tribute  every  seventh — that  is,  the  Sabbatical — year. 

This  story  is  indeed  the  stuff  that  dreams  are  made  of.  It  is 
unnecessary  to  dwell  upon  its  improbabilities.1  Not  to  speak 
of  Greek  authors  who  know  nothing  of  the  incident,  the  tradi- 
tion if  reliable  would  have  been  known  to  the  author  of  Daniel, 
for  he  shows  himself  familiar  with  the  history  of  the  Ptolemies 
and  Seleucids,  and  so  edifying  a  story  would  have  impressed 
itself  upon  him.  Legends  about  Alexander  began  to  circulate 
soon  after  his  death.  Which  one  of  these  Josephus  used  to  em- 
bellish his  history  we  cannot  make  out.  Whatever  it  was,  we 
are  unable  to  use  it  for  the  history  of  the  Jews.  Probably  Jeru- 
salem had  no  such  importance  in  Alexander's  eyes  as  to  call  for 
a  personal  visit.  It  was  only  one  town  out  of  many  in  the  prov- 
ince of  Syria.  This  province  had  been  secured  by  the  surrender 
of  the  Persian  governor.  The  Greek  sources  say  distinctly  that 
the  rest  of  Palestine  had  made  its  submission  to  Alexander  before 
the  siege  of  Gaza.* 

The  only  early  impression  concerning  Alexander  recorded  in 
a  Jewish  source,  is  that  given  in  the  book  of  Daniel.  Here  the 
Greek  power  is  pictured  to  us  as  the  most  ferocious  among  the 
ferocious  beasts  which  the  sage  sees  in  his  vision  :  "  The  fourth 
beast,  dreadful  and  terrible,  and  strong  exceedingly;  it  had 
great  iron  teeth;  it  devoured  and  broke  in  pieces  and  stamped 
the  residue  with  its  feet."  s  We  can  see  that  the  rapidity  and 
thoroughness  of  Alexander's  conquests  were  enough  to  strike  ter- 
ror into  the  hearts  of  those  who  were  conquered.  More  im- 
pressive even  than  his  conquests  was  his  method  of  unifying  his 
empire  by  his  numerous  Greek  colonies.  The  Greek  was  con- 
scious of  a  world  mission.  The  Babylonian  and  Persian  had 
been  content  for  the  most  part  to  leave  the  subject  peoples  with 
their  own  customs.  The  new  power  was  a  source  of  discomfort 

1  Antiquities,  XI,  8.  The  improbabilities  are  most  conclusively  shown 
by  Willrich,  Juden  und  Griechen  vor  der  Makkabdischen  Erhebung,  p.  6 
ff.  He  refers  to  St.  Croix,  who  took  the  same  position  in  his  Examen  Cri- 
tique in  1775.  This  book  I  have  not  seen. 

1  Arrian  as  cited  by  Willrich,  Juden  und  Griechen,  p.  15.  I  have  no! 
•een  Donath's  dissertation,  Die  Alexandersage.  mentioned  by  Willrich, 

•Dan.  7T.  cf.  T.Mand8»-«. 


THE   GREEK   PERIOD  41$ 

to  its  subjects,  not  only  because  the  mercenaries  plundered  and 
oppressed  them,  but  also  because  it  insisted  on  reconstructing 
their  social  and  political  fabric.  The  full  import  of  this  comes 
out  a  little  after  Alexander. 

Alexander  died  before  consolidating  his  empire.  The  period 
of  bloodshed  which  followed  his  death  has  left  no  traces  on 
the  history  of  Judea,1  or  rather,  the  traces  have  disappeared  from 
the  records.  The  little  district  about  Jerusalem  often  changed 
masters,  as  did  the  city  itself,  during  those  troublous  times,  and 
each  change  brought  oppression  and  suffering.  Palestine  was 
the  bone  of  contention  between  Ptolemy  and  Antigonus,  later  be- 
tween the  Ptolemies  and  the  Seleucids.  The  first  Ptolemy  is 
said  to  have  captured  Jerusalem  on  a  Sabbath,  when  the  citizens 
would  not  fight,  holding  to  the  observance  of  the  Law,  even  at 
the  cost  of  slavery.8 

At  this  time  therefore  a  large  number  of  Jews  were  carried  as 
slaves  into  Egypt.  The  large  Jewish  population  in  Alexandria, 
of  which  we  hear  much  at  a  later  period,  probably  had  its  begin- 
nings at  this  date.  When  once  a  nucleus  was  established  by  the 
manumission  of  some  of  these  slaves  the  community  would  grow 
by  attracting  other  Jews.  The  people  had  learned  in  Babylon  how 
to  live  and  yet  preserve  their  separateness  from  the  Gentiles.  In 
Palestine  the  means  of  livelihood  were  scanty,  and  the  miseries  of 
war  were  chronic.  Emigration  would  be  the  natural  method  of 
relief,  and  the  fertile  country  of  the  Nile  would  attract  those  who 
sought  a  new  home.  It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  the 
Ptolemies  colonised  Alexandria  with  Jews  or  that  a  wholesale 
manumission  of  Jewish  slaves  took  place,  such  as  is  attributed 
to  Ptolemy  Philadelphia.'  The  age  was  an  age  of  migration 
and  the  Jews  felt  the  impulse.  It  was  also  an  age  in  which  the 

1  At  about  the  period  of  Alexander's  conquest  some  authors  now  place 
the  discourses  against  the  nations  contained  in  the  book  of  Jeremiah  (chap* 
ters  25,  46-51).  The  arguments,  however,  seem  precarious.  Cf.  Schwally 
in  the  Zeitschr.f.  d.  Alttest.  Wissensch.,  VIII,  177  ff.,  and  Giesebrecht  in  his 
commentary. 

1  This  question  of  the  Sabbath  again  became  a  burning  one  in  the  time  of 
the  Maccabees.  The  incident  under  Ptolemy  I.  is  taken  by  Josephus  (/Int., 
XII,  I,  and  Against  Apion,  I,  22)  from  a  Greek  author.  The  manner  in  which 
this  author  (Agatharchides  of  Cnidus)  treats  it,  is  a  strong  guarantee  of  its 
correctness,  as  is  pointed  out  by  Willrich,  Juden  und  Gritcken,  p.  22. 

•  In  the  letter  of  Aristeas,  12-26. 


416  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

cities  assumed  new  importance  under  the  influence  of  Greek 
ideas.1 

Ptolemy's  possession  of  the  country  was  contested  by  Antigonus, 
who  in  315  B.C.  took  possession  of  Syria  down  to  the  Egyptian 
frontier.  The  Egyptians  repulsed  him  (or  his  son  Demetrius)  in 
a  hard-fought  battle  at  Gaza  three  years  later.  The  next  year, 
however,  Antigonus  returned  and  again  took  possession  of  the 
country  with  the  expectation  of  carrying  the  war  into  Africa. 
Although  the  invasion  of  Egypt  was  not  successful,  Syria  re- 
mained six  years  in  his  power.  But  now  Antigonus  (perhaps 
the  ablest  of  the  aspirants  to  Alexander's  empire)  was  opposed  by 
a  coalition  and  by  them  defeated  and  slain  in  the  year  301  B.C.* 
By  this  battle  Seleucus  was  secured  in  the  possession  of  the 
eastern  provinces  of  Alexander's  empire.  The  two  kingdoms 
with  which  the  Jews  had  now  to  deal  were  Syria  and  Egypt. 
The  former,  under  the  rule  of  the  house  of  Seleucus,  extended 
from  the  bay  of  Issus  to  the  frontiers  of  India.  By  express 
agreement,  Egypt  and  the  Ptolemies  were  to  have  Coelesyria 
as  it  was  called,  that  is,  Palestine  and  the  Lebanon.  But  now, 
as  in  the  old  days,  the  Mesopotamian  power  felt  that  its  natural 
outlet  toward  the  west  was  by  the  ports  of  the  Mediterranean. 
Scarcely  had  Ptolemy  taken  possession  of  Palestine,  therefore, 
when  Seleucus  with  his  victorious  elephants  advanced  to  contest 
his  claim.  The  complicated  struggle  which  ensued  is  difficult  to 
follow  intelligently,  and  its  details  do  not  specially  concern  an  Old 
Testament  historian.  Seleucus  seems  to  have  been  in  control  in 
Palestine  in  the  year  295  B.C.  Twenty  years  later  Ptolemy  Phila- 
delphus  came  to  the  front  and  extended  his  sway  as  far  as  the 
Lebanon.8  Antiochus  III.,  called  the  Great,  vindicated  the  Se- 
leucid  claim  in  219  B.C.,  but  was  obliged  to  retreat.  A  second  at- 
tempt in  198  B.C.  was  more  successful.  From  this  time  down  to 

1  An  inscription  recently  discovered  shows  that  a  synagogue  was  dedicated 
in  one  of  the  smaller  towns  of  the  Delta  In  the  reign  of  Ptolemy  Euergetes 
(247-222  B.C.);  see  Schiirer  in  the  Theol.  Literaturzeitung,  1903,  col.  156. 

'The  battle  of  Ipsus  in  this  year  is  one  of  the  decisive  battles  of  history. 
Cf.  Stark,  Gaza  und  die  Philistdische  Kiiste  (1852),  p.  359  ff.  ;  Droysen, 
Geschichte  des  Hellenismus  ?  II,  2,  p.  216  ff.;  Mahaffy,  Alexander's  Empire, 
p.  67. 

1  Schiirer,  Gesck,  des  Jiid.  Volkes*  II.,  p.  74.  A  chronological  table 
covering  the  period  from  the  death  of  Alexander  to  the  Roman  conquest  of 
the  East  is  given  by  Mahaffy,  Greek  Life  and  Thought,  pp.  xiv-xxxiL 


THE   GREEK  PERIOD  417 

the  Roman  supremacy  the  kingdom  of  Syria  was  supreme  in 
Palestine.1 

Both  Ptolemies  and  Seleucids  were  Greek  by  blood.  Both 
families  regarded  themselves  as  legitimate  successors  of  Alexan- 
der, and  both  desired  to  continue  Alexander's  policy  of  Hellen- 
ising  the  East.  The  most  conspicuous  feature  of  this  new  civili- 
sation was  the  predominance  of  the  city  as  a  political  entity. 
Semitic  society  is  based  on  the  tribe.  This  we  see  in  the  history 
of  Israel.  The  cities — Hebron,  Shechem,  Samaria — nowhere 
take  part  in  political  movements  ;  these  movements  spring  from 
the  tribes,  Judah,  Ephraim,  or  Benjamin.  In  the  era  now  before 
us,  the  tribe  disappears  from  view  and  the  city  takes  its  place. 
Nothing  strikes  the  student  more  forcibly  than  the  number  of 
new  cities  that  now  come  to  the  front.  The  old  towns  when 
conquered  or  surrendered  are  rebuilt  and  reorganised.  By  their 
side  many  new  ones  spring  into  existence.  The  kings  are  pre- 
eminently patrons  of  these  cities,  and  whether  the  cities  are  re- 
built, enlarged,  or  newly  founded,  they  receive  Greek  colonists. 
Alexander  himself  is  said  to  have  founded  more  than  sixty  of 
these  cities  in  his  brief  career.  The  number  founded  by  his  suc- 
cessors rises  into  the  hundreds.  In  Palestine,  as  elsewhere,  old 
and  new  cities  received  the  Greek  organization.  Besides  the 
chief  places  in  Philistia  and  across  the  Jordan,  we  read  that 
Joppa,  Dor,  Accho,  Bethshan  (all  Israelite  by  tradition)  belong 
in  this  class.  The  state  of  things  in  Jerusalem  is  not  revealed  to 
us  by  any  express  declaration,  and  in  the  small  district  of  which  it 
was  now  the  capital,  we  do  not  find  any  cities  on  the  new  model. 

It  was  in  accord  with  the  Greek  idea  that  the  city  should  have 
its  autonomy.  This  was  carried  out,  so  far  as  the  supremacy  of 
the  king  was  not  encroached  upon.  The  seat  of  power  was  rec- 
ognised to  be  the  demos,  the  body  of  freemen.  Along  with 
them  the  city  was  inhabited  by  slaves  and  clients  who  had  no 
voice  in  the  Assembly.  The  administration  was  in  the  hands  of 
a  Council  chosen  from  the  freemen.  So  long  as  the  taxes  were 
paid,  and  so  long  as  complaints  of  injustice  were  not  heard,  this 
body  was  allowed  to  carry  on  the  government.  The  surround- 
ing country  and  its  villages  naturally  fell  under  its  jurisdiction. 
The  franchise  was  not  confined  to  men  of  a  single  race.  In 

1  As  against  any  foreign  claimant,  that  is ;  the  actual  condition  under  the 
Maccabean  princes  will  be  considered  at  length  in  the  next  chapter. 


415  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

some  instances  it  is  clear  that  it  was  possessed  by  both  Jews  and 
Greek?  in  the  same  city.1 

Although  we  have  no  distinct  assertion  concerning  Jerusa- 
lem in  this  period,  we  may  readily  suppose  that  the  tendency 
toward  new  civic  autonomy  had  a  favourable  effect  on  the  de- 
pressed commonwealth  of  the  Jews.  Jerusalem  under  a  Persian 
governor,  though  the  centre  of  the  district,  had  little  opportunity 
to  assert  itself.  Under  the  new  system  its  predominance  in  the 
district  would  be  emphasised.  The  headship  of  the  community 
had  been  vested  in  the  high-priest.  The  democratic  organisa- 
tion would  readily  associate  with  him  a  committee  of  influential 
citizens,  and  give  him  in  some  respects  more  real  power  than  he 
had  ever  had.  It  does  not  seem  forced,  therefore,  to  suppose 
that  the  period  before  us  saw  the  rise  of  the  Sanhedrin — a  senate 
whose  importance  for  the  later  history  of  Judaism  can  scarcely  be 
overestimated.  At  a  later  time  we  find  that  the  smaller  towns 
also  had  their  Councils,  but  these  do  not  emerge  into  view  in  the 
present  period. 

Greek  colonies  carried  Greek  culture,  and  Greek  culture 
brought  with  it  Greek  religion.  No  city  could  be  founded  or 
repopulated  by  Alexander  or  his  successors  without  receiving  a 
patron  deity  from  the  Greek  pantheon.1  The  gymnasium,  the 
theatre,  and  the  baths  were  consecrated  each  to  its  proper  divin- 
ity. This  would  not  be  objectionable  to  most  orientals.  Syr- 
ians and  Phoenicians  discovered  their  own  gods  in  those  which 
came  in  with  the  new  colonists.  Melkart  and  Heracles  were,  in 
fact,  identical  in  origin,  and  so  were  Aphrodite  and  Ishtar.  Even 
where  the  identification  could  not  be  made,  toleration  was  the 
rule.  In  polytheistic  religions,  a  few  gods  more  or  less  do  not 
make  much  difference.  The  attractiveness  of  the  Greek  mythol- 
ogy in  itself  is  evident  from  the  spell  which  it  still  exercises  on 
men  of  taste.  The  aggressive  power  of  Greek  art  and  literature 
(manifest  throughout  the  new  empire  of  Alexander)  implied  ag- 
gressive power  also  in  Greek  religion. 

1  Statements  of  Jewish  writers  on  this  subject  are,  however,  to  be  re- 
ceived with  caution.  It  was  evidently  to  their  interest  to  claim  for  their  peo- 
pie  CTerything  that  belonged  to  the  most  favoured  nation. 

1  The  importance  of  religion  to  the  Greek  city  is  well  set  forth  by  Fustel 
de  Coulanges,  La  Cit/  Antique  (I  have  the  seventh  edition,  1879;  the 
English  translation  is  dated  1877). 


THE   GREEK  PERIOD  419 

We  cannot  indeed  suppose  that  the  East  was  more  than  su- 
perficially Hellenised.  Only  the  more  educated  or  the  more 
thoughtful  minds  could  appreciate  Greek  literature,  art,  and  phi- 
losophy. But  the  mass  of  men  would  be  attracted  by  the  bright- 
ness and  gaiety  of  Greek  life.  Among  the  Jews  we  have  found 
reason  to  suppose  there  were  already  two  parties.  The  laxer  one 
would  not  be  slow  to  feel  the  new  attraction.  The  stricter  one 
had  already  adopted  the  maxim  that  Yahweh  is  a  jealous  God. 
His  Law,  which  they  were  already  translating  into  life,  had  pro- 
tected His  worshippers  from  contamination  by  Baal.  It  would 
prove  sufficient  to  repel  the  seductions  of  Dionysus  or  Aphro- 
dite. After  some  centuries,  the  thinking  few  discovered  that  it 
was  possible  to  adopt  Greek  thought  and  (to  a  considerable  ex- 
tent) Greek  culture  without  giving  up  Hebrew  religion.  But 
for  the  present  the  alternatives  seemed  to  exclude  each  other. 

The  first  effect  of  the  new  civilisation  among  the  Jews  was,  as 
we  might  expect,  a  stout  affirmation  of  the  validity  of  the  old 
system.  On  this  supposition  we  can  readily  account  for  the 
book  which  we  call  Chronicles,  one  of  the  most  important  liter- 
ary products  of  the  period.1  The  author  has  in  mind  to  write  a 
complete  history  of  his  people  in  a  form  that  will  edify  his  con- 
temporaries, and  he  does  this  with  a  thoroughness  which  in  the 
view  of  his  school  must  have  left  little  to  be  desired.  We  have 
no  difficulty  in  discovering  what  he  thinks  necessary  to  edify  his 
contemporaries ;  it  is  to  show  the  divine  origin  of  the  Hebrew 
commonwealth,  its  divine  guidance,  and  its  organisation  from 
:he  beginning  in  the  form  it  has  taken  in  his  own  time. 

Now,  as  we  have  seen,  the  postexilic  community  at  Jerusalem 
was  a  church  and  not  a  state.  Its  centre  was  the  Temple.  The 
reason  for  its  existence  was  the  conservation  of  the  Temple  wor- 
ship. In  all  honesty  therefore  the  Chronicler  held  this  thesis : 
The  Temple  is  the  central  object  of  all  human  history.  And  his 
work  is  really  a  defence  of  this  thesis.  First  we  have  an  intro- 
ductory section  consisting  of  genealogies.  These  genealogies  are 
made  up  from  the  older  historical  books  and  they  are  designed  to 

1  Under  Chronicles  we  include  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  On  the  date  and 
nature  of  the  composition  the  discussion  of  De  Wette  in  his  Beitr&ge,  I 
(1806),  is  still  worth  reading.  Cf.  also  Wellhausen,  Prolegomena;  Driver, 
Introduction,  and  the  articles  In  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary  and  in  the  En- 

•yclopctdi*  Biblica. 


42O  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

show  Israel's  place  among  the  nations  of  the  earth,  to  show  also 
that  postexilic  Israel  is  the  legitimate  descendant  of  old  Israel. 
We  have  seen  how  much  emphasis  the  community  organised  by 
Nehemiah  laid  upon  purity  of  blood.  Possibly  even  the  more 
liberal  party  had  learned  the  use  of  genealogy.  That  the  gene- 
alogies on  record  were  often  fictitious  agrees  with  what  we  ob- 
serve in  other  ages. 

If  it  was  important  to  show  that  the  Jews  as  a  whole  were  of 
pure  blood  it  was  even  more  important  to  show  this  for  the 
priests  and  Levites.  Not  only  did  they  form  a  sort  of  aristoc- 
racy in  the  community ;  their  right  to  take  part  in  divine  ser- 
vice (whose  conformity  to  the  divine  Law  was  a  sine  qua  non  for 
the  well-being  of  the  nation)  was  based  upon  their  blood.  We 
can  understand  how  important  and  how  practical  was  this  part  of 
the  work  before  us. 

The  historical  part  of  the  work,  counting  from  the  death  of 
Saul  to  the  end  of  Nehemiah's  administration,  falls  into  three 
almost  equal  parts.  The  first  embraces  the  reigns  of  David  and 
Solomon.  The  author  had  no  really  historical  information  ex- 
cept what  is  contained  in  our  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings.1  And 
in  using  these  sources  the  author  kept  his  main  purpose  steadily 
in  view.  With  him  history  begins  with  David.  Saul  is  left 
entirely  out  of  view,  for  he  was  rejected  and  his  kingdom  was  il- 
legitimate. And  in  the  history  of  David  and  Solomon  much 
that  does  not  bear  on  the  main  object  is  resolutely  omitted. 
That  main  object  is  to  show  David  and  Solomon  wholly  devoted 
to  the  work  of  the  Lord  in  building  the  Temple  and  organising 
its  services.  David  spends  his  life  in  collecting  the  material  for 
the  sanctuary.  He  organises  the  Levites  on  the  lines  of  the 
postexilic  system.  While  yet  in  full  strength  he  sets  Solomon  on 
the  throne  and  hands  over  to  him  the  plan  and  the  materials  for 
the  Temple  with  a  solemn  charge  for  the  completion  of  the  great 
work.  We  are  reminded  of  Ptolemy  I.  abdicating  in  favour  of 
his  son  while  still  in  full  possession  of  his  powers.1 

1  For  the  present  purpose  this  is  enough  to  say  about  the  sources.  The 
author  probably  had  various  documents  at  his  hand  not  much  older  than  his 
own  time  which  had  worked  over  the  history  in  the  same  spirit  by  which  he 
himself  was  moved.  Cf.  Kittel  in  the  Handkommentar. 

*This  took  place  in  285  B.  c.  according  to  Mahaffy,  Greek  Life  and 
Thought,  p.  200.  How  far  the  Chronicler's  picture  differs  from  that  of  the 
earlier  history  need  not  be  pointed  out. 


THE   GREEK   PERIOD  421 

It  would  not  be  difficult  for  the  Jewish  student  to  read  be- 
tween the  lines  a  comparison  of  his  own  kings  with  the  Ptol- 
emies in  other  respects — to  the  advantage  of  the  former.  If  the 
kings  of  Egypt  were  religious  in  their  way,  David  and  Solomon 
were  more  religious  in  their  way,  with  the  advantage  that  theirs 
was  the  true  way.  Seen  through  the  vista  of  the  centuries 
David's  prowess  was  more  than  Alexander's,  and  Solomon's 
wealth  was  greater  than  any  upstart  Greek  dynasty  could  show. 
If  the  later  kings  were  great  builders,  so  was  Solomon  a  great 
builder  and  a  coloniser  as  well.  Did  he  not  settle  Israelites  in 
the  cities  given  him  by  the  Phoenicians  and  in  the  cities  of 
Hamath?  Did  he  not  build  Tadmor  in  the  wilderness  and 
other  strongholds  ?  And  as  for  military  preponderance,  let  the 
twelve  great  divisions  of  David's  standing  army  answer,  each  con- 
taining twenty-four  thousand  men,1  and  these  not  foreign  mer- 
cenaries ready  to  go  over  to  an  opponent  if  tempted  by  higher 
pay,  but  true  sons  of  Israel  each  ready  to  shed  the  last  drop  of 
his  blood  for  Yahweh  and  His  anointed.  Doubtless  the  resem- 
blance and  the  contrast  were  in  the  mind  of  the  historian.  If 
he  made  his  kings  patrons  of  literature  also,  like  the  contempo- 
rary Ptolemies,  he  found  tradition  ready  to  his  hand,  for  both 
David  and  Solomon  were  already  counted  authors  of  the  first 
rank,  with  whom  neither  Ptolemy  or  Seleucid  could  vie. 

In  the  second  section  of  the  history — from  Solomon  to  the 
exile — there  was  much  to  pass  over  in  silence.  The  revolt  of 
Jeroboam  was  a  revolt  against  the  divine  order.  It  was,  in  fact, 
so  considered  by  the  author  of  the  book  of  Kings.  To  the 
Chronicler  the  effects  were  more  far-reaching.  By  the  revolt,  as 
he  regarded  it,  the  ten  tribes  cut  themselves  off  from  the  divinely 
ordered  commonwealth.  Judah  alone  now  becomes  the  heir  of  the 
promises,  and  with  Judah  alone  our  history  concerns  itself.  The 
fortunes  of  the  larger  half  of  the  nation  are  resolutely  cut  out  of  the 
narrative.  Even  the  heroic  struggle  of  Elijah  against  the  Tyrian 
Baal  has  no  interest  for  our  author.  His  only  use  for  Elijah  is  in 
having  him  write  a  letter  to  rebuke  one  of  the  kings  of  Judah.* 

1  I  Chron.  27.  Solomon's  4,000  chariots  (  2  Chron.  g14)  belong  in  the 
same  category,  though  here  tradition  had  already  invaded  the  earlier  book  of 
history. 

*  2  Chron.  21  "-*>.  The  theory  of  temporal  punishment  for  sin  is  Ulu* 
trated  in  the  crassest  manner  in  this  passage. 


^22  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

The  Chronicler's  theory  of  history  is  writ  large  in  all  this 
narrative.  The  kings  who  conserve  the  institutions  of  the  Law 
are  rewarded  with  long  life  and  prosperity.  Those  who  depart 
from  the  Law  are  punished  by  invasion  and  calamity  and  their 
reigns  are  cut  short.  The  prophets  are  always  at  hand  to  make 
plain  the  causal  connexion  of  sin  and  misfortune,  and  the  good 
kings  themselves  not  infrequently  ascend  the  pulpit  and  edify  us 
by  justifying  the  ways  of  God  to  men.  Thus  Abijah  expounds 
to  Jeroboam  and  his  men  the  sin  of  which  they  had  been  guilty 
in  throwing  off  their  allegiance  to  David's  house.  The  dis- 
course is  emphasised  by  a  tremendous  victory.  Jehoshaphat 
encourages  his  men  to  trust  in  Yahweh  and  sets  a  choir  of 
Levites  before  the  army.  The  spiritual  arm  is  mighty  and  the 
enemy  is  discomfited.  That  the  hint  given  by  the  book  of 
Kings  concerning  Hezekiah's  reforms  gives  the  author  opportu- 
nity to  make  of  this  king  a  saint  after  his  own  heart  does  not 
surprise  us ;  and  that  Manasseh's  long  reign  is  accounted  for  by 
an  act  of  repentance  does  not  move  us  more. 

It  is  plain  that  we  have  here  to  do  not  with  a  history  but  with 
an  argument.  The  Temple  with  its  corps  of  officials  is  a 
wholly  divine  institution — this  is  the  thesis  which  comes  again 
and  again  to  the  front.  After  the  organisation  of  the  priesthood 
by  David  the  sole  purpose  of  the  commonwealth  is  to  keep  the 
Temple  and  its  services  in  honour.  The  Davidic  dynasty  was 
not  necessary  to  this ;  when  they  were  rejected,  foreign  kings 
took  their  place.  To  show  this  is  the  object  of  the  third  section 
of  the  work  (now  called  by  the  names  Ezra  and  Nehemiah). 
Here  we  find  Gentile  monarchs  becoming  nursing  fathers  of  the 
theocracy.  Cyrus  gives  command  to  rebuild  the  Temple  and 
defrays  the  cost  from  the  royal  revenues.  Darius  rebukes  the 
enemies  of  Israel  and  commands  the  work  to  go  forward. 
Artaxerxes  sends  Ezra  back  to  reintroduce  the  Law  and  clothes 
him  with  regal  powers  as  well  as  makes  a  magnificent  donation  to 
the  Temple.  The  same  Artaxerxes  gives  Nehemiah  authority  to 
rebuild  the  walls,  and  to  enforce  the  peculiar  institutions  of 
Judaism.  That  the  greater  part  of  this  is  not  history  we  have 
nad  occasion  to  note.  It  should  be  doubly  clear  to  us  now  that 
we.  see  how  completely  the  author  is  possessed  by  his  ideal. 
And  this  is  what  pious  and  narrow  men  were  dreaming  when 
art  and  Greek  thought  were  making  their  way  in  western 


THE  GREEK  PERIOD  423 

Asia.  They  were  holding  on  the  more  tenaciously  to  their  own 
system  the  more  it  was  threatened  by  another  civilisation. 
They  were  perhaps  reconciling  themselves  to  the  possibility  that 
the  Messiah  was  not  to  come  for  some  time.  In  that  case  they 
consoled  themselves  with  the  thought  that  God  could  move  Gen- 
tile kings  to  do  all  that  was  necessary  for  the  support  of  the  true 
religion.1  All  that  the  priestly  caste  really  needed  was  to  be  pro- 
tected in  the  exercise  of  their  functions.  And  this  protection 
they  found,  often  at  least,  under  Gentile  kings. 

But  this  protection  could  not  always  be  counted  upon,  and 
when  war  or  sedition  came,  the  hope  of  a  Son  of  David  quickly 
revived.  This  is  shown  by  an  obscure  document  which  we  now 
find  in  the  Book  of  the  Twelve.  *  Its  descriptions  of  what  is 
going  on  in  Jerusalem  are  no  longer  intelligible  to  us.  But  we  are 
able  to  make  out  that  the  kingdoms  of  Syria  and  Egypt  have 
taken  the  place  of  the  ancient  enemies  of  Israel.  The  writer  be- 
gins by  prophesying  that  Yahweh  will  take  possession  of  the  land 
of  Syria  and  subdue  to  Himself  the  Philistine  cities.  Then  the 
Messiah  will  come,  but  not  with  pomp  and  circumstance  like 
the  rulers  of  this  world :  ' '  Rejoice,  daughter  of  Zion  !  Shout, 
daughter  of  Jerusalem  !  Righteous  and  victorious  is  he ;  meek 
also  and  riding  upon  an  ass,  upon  the  foal  of  an  ass.  He  shall 
cut  off  the  chariot  from  Ephrairr.  and  the  horse  from  Jerusalem ; 
the  warlike  bow  shall  be  destroyed  and  he  shall  speak  peace  to 
the  nations,  and  shall  rule  from  sea  to  sea  and  from  the  river  to 
the  ends  of  the  land."8 

These  verses  give  the  author's  expectation.  The  rest  of  the 
prophecy  shows  the  various  ways  in  which  the  wished-for  con- 
summation is  to  be  attained.  The  Messiah  indeed  is  a  prince  of 
peace.  But  His  reign  can  begin  only  after  the  defeat  of  the 

1  The  Messianic  hope  is  not  prominent  in  the  Chronicler's  narrative. 
The  only  trace  of  it  seems  to  be  the  promise  that  David's  throne  should  be 
established  for  ever.  The  non-fulfilment  of  this  promise  may  have  been 
accounted  for  by  the  unfaithfulness  of  David's  descendants.  Probably  the 
author,  who  is  interested  in  the  hierocracy,  may  have  had  the  uneasy  feeling 
that  a  new  David  would  not  be  a  comfortable  man  to  get  along  with. 

*  Which  we  call  the  Minor  Prophets.  The  passage  is  Zechariah,  9-14. 
The  chapters  are  so  near  together  in  point  of  time  that  the  question  whether 
they  are  by  a  single  author  is  of  subordinate  importance. 

*Zech.  9".  It  is  plain  that  this  passage  makes  the  Messiah's  kingdom  ex- 
tend as  far  as  Solomon's,  but  no  farther. 


424  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

Gentiles,  and  this  is  the  work  of  Yahweh  Himself.  He  will  take 
Judah  as  His  bow  and  Ephraim  as  His  arrow  and  direct  them 
against  the  enemy.  The  same  thing  is  expressed  in  the  figure 
that  the  sheep  of  Yahweh  will  become  war-horses  against  the 
oppressive  shepherds.  The  shepherds  are  the  Gentile  rulers  of 
Israel.  When  they  are  trodden  down,  the  scattered  Sons  of  Is- 
rael will  return  to  their  own  country  and  fill  it  so  that  even 
Gilead  and  Lebanon  shall  not  suffice  for  them.  This  will  be 
only  after  a  time  of  trial  and  purification,  but  in  the  end  the 
remnant  will  be  the  people  of  Yahweh  and  He  will  be  their 
God.1 

A  variation  upon  the  same  theme  follows,  showing  all  nations 
besieging  Jerusalem.  But  Yahweh  Himself  will  descend  upon 
the  Mount  of  Olives  and  make  war  against  them.  First,  how- 
ever, will  come  the  extremity  of  suffering.  The  city  will  be 
taken  and  plundered — only  half  the  people  will  escape  and  they 
will  flee  through  the  passage  opened  by  the  dividing  of  the 
Mount  of  Olives.  This  will  be  followed  by  the  victory  of  Yah- 
weh which  will  usher  in  His  reign — a  reign  that  will  not  be 
earthly  in  its  character,  for  heat  and  cold  and  day  and  night  will 
cease.  Jerusalem  will  become  the  ecclesiastical  centre  of  the 
earth,  to  which  all  nations  will  make  pilgrimage.  Those  which 
refuse  will  be  punished  by  the  withholding  of  their  rain — or 
if  it  be  Egypt  (which  is  not  dependent  on  rain)  then  by  some 
other  plague.  The  ritual  character  of  the  city  is  indicated  by 
the  declaration  that  all  the  cooking  vessels  in  the  city  will  be 
consecrated  to  Yahweh,  so  that  the  multitude  of  worshippers  may 
be  able  to  use  them  for  the  festival  sacrifice.2 

The  pious  were  still  holding  on  to  the  Messianic  hope,  and 
the  hope  was  beginning  to  take  the  fantastic  shape  of  later  apoca- 

1  The  promise,  13  7-*,  seems  the  continuation  of  the  discourse  against  the 
shepherds  ;  see  Nowack  in  his  commentary  (ffandkommentar,  1897).  It  is 
unnecessary  here  to  discuss  the  obscure  passage  concerning  the  three  shep- 
herds cut  off  in  one  month.  It  seems  to  refer  to  frequent  changes  in  the 
high-priesthood  under  the  Syrian  rule,  or  perhaps  in  the  change  from  Syria 
to  Egypt  and  back  again. 

*Zech.  14  I0f.  This  chapter  seems  to  be  an  independent  composition  and 
differs  somewhat  from  the  rest  of  the  book.  Its  statement  that  Jerusalem 
will  be  taken  by  the  enemy  before  the  deliverance  comes  may  be  the  basis 
for  later  speculations  concerning  the  Antichrist.  The  reputation  into  which 
the  prophets  had  fallen  is  indicated  by  13  1-7. 


THE   GREEK   PERIOD  425 

lyptic  visions.  The  high-priestly  regime  was  far  from  satisfying 
the  requirements  of  those  who  clung  most  closely  to  the  Law. 
This  is  what  we  learn  from  this  part  of  the  book  of  Zechariah. 
What  the  mind  of  the  more  rigidly  pious  Jews  was  toward  the 
Gentiles  is  revealed  to  us  by  the  striking  polemic  which  we  find 
in  the  book  of  Jonah.  The  little  tract  seems  strangely  out  of 
place  among  the  works  of  the  ancient  seers.  It  purports  indeed 
to  relate  the  adventures  of  one  of  them,  in  the  endeavour  to 
escape  from  the  duty  divinely  laid  upon  him.  But  we  easily  dis- 
cover that  the  narrative  is  a  parable.  The  hateful  world-power  is 
presented  to  us  under  the  figure  of  that  Nineveh  which  was  famous 
at  one  time  as  the  capital  of  the  world.  That  it  will  be  destroyed 
is  assumed  to  be  the  hope  of  Jews  of  the  Jonah  type.  Therefore 
when  the  prophet  is  sent  to  announce  the  doom  of  the  city,  he 
flees — not  from  cowardice,  but  because  he  knows  the  merciful 
nature  of  Yahweh.  If  he  announces  the  coming  vengeance,  the 
people  will  repent  and  then  they  will  be  spared.  But  this  is  not 
what  he  wants — he  wants  the  hated  world-power  to  be  destroyed. 

As  he  anticipated,  so  it  turned  out.  Miraculously  brought 
back  from  his  flight,  he  witnessed  the  repentance  of  the  great 
city.  But  not  willing  to  give  up  his  hope  that  it  would  be  de- 
stroyed, he  took  up  his  station  just  outside  the  walls  and  watched 
for  the  threatened  catastrophe.  Angry  at  the  patience  of  Yah- 
weh, he  was  taught  a  lesson  by  the  vine  in  whose  shade  he  has 
rejoiced.  Smitten  by  a  worm,  the  vine  withers  and  exposes  the 
prophet  to  the  hot  Assyrian  sun.  As  he  laments  over  the  death 
of  the  ephemeral  plant  the  divine  voice  asks  him  :  Should  not 
God  take  pity  on  the  hundred  thousand  innocent  infants  in 
Nineveh,  not  to  speak  of  the  cattle  to  whose  charge  no  sin  could 
belaid? 

The  man  who  could  thus  write  was  a  bold  man.  Who  ever 
rebuked  the  narrowness  of  the  sect  to  which  he  belonged  without 
incurring  their  suspicion  or  hatred?  To  the  stricter  Jews  the 
Gentiles  had  become  objects  of  hatred  only.  For  them  Jonah 
is  intended  to  hold  the  mirror  up  to  nature.  The  author  of  the 
book  believed  God  to  be  the  God  of  the  Jews  not  only,  but  also 
of  the  Gentiles.  This  God  has  compassion  on  the  works  of  His 

'At  the  present  day  it  seems  difficult  to  imagine  anyone  taking  it  for  any- 
thing else.  The  embittered  controversy  over  the  historicity  of  the  book 
may  now  be  counted  a  thing  of  the  past. 


426  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

hands ;  even  the  heathen  who  repent  of  their  sins  find  accept- 
ance with  Him.  And  Jonah  may  be  something  more  than  a 
type  of  that  narrow  exclusiveness  which  the  author  abhorred. 
It  is  possible  that  missionary  ideas  are  here  embodied.  If  Israel 
was  in  possession  of  the  true  religion,  had  it  not  a  duty  to  per- 
form in  enlightening  those  who  were  deprived  of  this  knowl- 
edge ?  Some  such  questions  could  not  fail  to  be  started  by  this 
little  book.  For  the  time  being,  however,  it  had  no  visible 
effect. 

The  Ptolemies  were  patrons  of  Greek  literature.  Philadel- 
phus,  the  second  of  the  line,  was  in  accord  with  his  father  in  the 
desire  to  make  Alexandria  a  literary  centre.  The  older  king 
founded,  and  the  younger  fostered,  the  celebrated  Museum  and 
library  which  were  counted  among  the  wonders  of  the  world. 
The  direct  influence  of  these  institutions  on  the  Jews  of  Palestine 
could  not  have  been  large.  And  yet  they  may  have  given  some 
stimulus  to  the  study  of  old  Hebrew  literature.  Some  such  mo- 
tive may  be  assumed  at  this  time  for  the  collection  and  preserva- 
tion of  the  poems  contained  in  the  book  called  the  Song  of  Songs, 
that  is,  the  most  perfect  song.  A  Hebrew  scholar,  knowing  of 
the  boasted  beauty  of  Greek  erotic  poetry,  desired  to  show  that  his 
own  country  and  language  could  show  something  as  beautiful. 

The  Song  of  Songs  is  made  up  of  lyrics  whose  common  sub- 
ject is  the  joy  of  the  wedding  time.  For  the  week  given  over  to 
the  wedding  festivities,  the  bride  and  groom  are  queen  and  king 
of  their  little  village.  They  receive  the  homage  of  their  friends 
in  terms  borrowed  from  the  pomp  of  Solomon.  They  speak  in 
these  folk-songs,  describing  each  other's  charms  or  expressing  the 
delights  they  find  in  each  other's  company.  The  frankness  with 
\vhich  these  charms  and  these  delights  are  portrayed  is  not  in  ac- 
cordance with  modern  taste.  To  judge  the  poems  rightly,  we 
must  remember  that  it  is  wedded  love  which  forms  their  sub- 
ject. What  we  can  appreciate  is  the  love  of  nature  which  here 
reveals  itself — a  trait  of  the  Hebrew  temperament  which  we  rarely 
find  elsewhere.  The  intoxication  of  the  newly  wedded  pair  is 
enhanced  by  the  fresh  blooming  of  the  flowers,  the  singing  of 
the  birds,  the  perfume  of  the  opening  spring.  Such  a  book 
owes  its  place  in  the  canon  to  a  thorough  misunderstanding.  It 

1  The  Museum  was  a  school  for  critical  and  grammatical  studies ;  see  M* 
htffy,  The  Empire  of  the  Ptolemies,  p.  91  ff. 


THE   GREEK   PERIOD  427 

was  early  interpreted  as  an  expression  of  Yahweh's  love  for  His 
people — Hosea's  immortal  parable  had  impressed  itself  on  the 
thought  of  the  scribes.1  But  while  it  is  true  that  oriental  mys- 
tics have  often  described  their  religious  raptures  in  terms  bor- 
rowed from  sensual  love,  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  author  or 
editor  of  these  poems  was  one  of  their  number.1  While  we  are 
compelled  to  reject  this  interpretation,  we  may  still  be  grateful 
that  so  charming  a  specimen  of  Hebrew  literature  has  been  pre- 
served to  us,  and  also  that  so  human  a  document  has  found  a 
place  in  our  Bible. 

Some  of  the  poems  which  were  later  combined  in  our  Book  of 
Psalms  doubtless  originated  in  the  period  before  us,  but  their 
consideration  may  properly  come  later,  in  the  period  in  which 
the  whole  collection  was  put  in  circulation.  More  characteristic 
of  the  epoch  we  are  now  considering  was  the  rise  of  what  we  call 
the  Wisdom  literature.  This  includes  a  group  of  books,  part  of 
which  (Proverbs  and  Ecclesiastes)  found  a  place  in  the  Canon  of 
Scripture,  while  a  part  (Sirach,  Wisdom)  was  never  so  received 
by  the  Palestinian  Jews — though  their  circulation  among  Greek- 
speaking  Jews  introduced  them  to  the  Church.  Their  common 
features  are  so  striking  that  we  cannot  doubt  their  belonging  to 
the  same  period.*  Fortunately  we  are  able  to  date  one  of  them 
approximately,  and  thus  to  locate  the  whole  group,  which  belongs 
in  or  near  the  period  now  under  discussion.  The  translator  of 
ben  Sira,  who  is  the  grandson  of  the  author,  expressly  states 
that  he  came  into  Egypt  in  the  thirty-eighth  yeai  of  Ptolemy 
Euergetes.  This  must  be  the  second  Euergetes,  because  the  first 
reigned  but  twenty-five  years.  This  writer  therefore  came  to 
Egypt  in  the  year  132  B.C.  We  may  assume  that  his  grandfather's 

1  The  parable  was  taken  up  and  drawn  out  by  Ezekiel  (chapters  16  and  23), 
as  we  have  noticed. 

1  The  allegorical  interpretation  of  the  Song  has  now  generally  been  given 
up  by  Protestant  scholars.  Until  recently,  however,  the  book  was  supposed 
to  be  dramatic  in  its  structure — portraying  the  triumph  of  virtuous  love  over 
the  seductive  attempts  of  a  royal  suitor.  This  hypothesis  is  ably  defended 
by  Driver  (Introduction,  pp.  436-448).  On  the  whole  subject  the  reader 
may  consult  the  recent  commentaries  by  Siegfried  (Handkommentar,  1898) 
and  Budde  (Kurter  Handkommentar,  1898),  also  Budde's  article  in  the  AVw 
Wsrlti  for  1894.  An  extended  bibliography  is  given  in  the  commentaries. 

*  Three  of  them  are  ascribed  to  Solomon,  the  fourth  bears  the  author's  own 
name.  Probably  this  was  the  reason  why  the  last  was  not  received  by  th« 
Rabbis. 


428  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

book  was  completed  some  years  earlier.1  As  it  contains  no  clear 
reference  to  the  Maccabean  struggle,  we  may  date  it  before,  but 
probably  not  much  before,  the  year  170  B.C. 

The  work  which  thus  claims  our  attention  seems  to  show  Greek 
influence — not  so  much  in  what  it  says  as  in  what  it  implies. 
The  translator  begins  by  extolling  the  great  things  which  have 
been  handed  down  by  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  those  who 
have  followed  them — "on  account  of  which  one  must  praise 
Israel  for  culture  and  wisdom."  The  language  looks  like  a 
direct  challenge  to  the  boasted  philosophy  of  the  Greeks,  as 
though  to  say  that  Israel  has  a  superior  culture  derived  from  a 
more  venerable  tradition.  The  energy  of  the  protest  shows  the 
extent  to  which  thinking  men  were  conscious  of  the  Greek 
claim. 

We  shall  wrong  the  author,  however,  if  we  suppose  him  in- 
terested in  philosophy  for  its  own  sake.  The  Semitic  mind  has 
little  use  for  merely  speculative  thinking.  The  wisdom,  in  refer- 
ence to  which  the  author  reckons  Israel  no  whit  behind  the  very 
chiefest  of  the  peoples,  has  little  ambition  to  explain  the  origin  of 
things  or  to  bring  the  universe  into  a  rational  scheme.  It  feels 
deeply  the  practical  problems  of  life  and  aims  to  aid  in  their 
solution.  This  wisdom,  then,  is  the  guide  of  life,  guaranteed  to 
lead  its  disciples  into  ways  of  righteousness  and  therefore  into 
paths  of  peace.  Its  resemblance  to  the  earliest  teachings  of 
Greek  wise  men  easily  impresses  the  reader. 

This  wisdom  is  to  her  devotees  the  subject  of  unbounded 
panegyric.  By  their  imagination  she  is  personified  as  a  beauti- 
ful and  majestic  being — goddess  the  Jew  could  not  call  her — the 
constant  friend,  companion  and  counsellor  of  those  who  seek  her. 

"  Wisdom  instructs  her  sons  ; 
And  warns  those  who  attend  to  her. 
Those  who  love  her  love  life ; 
And  those  who  seek  her  early  find  acceptance. 
Those  who  hold  her  fast  attain  honour  ; 
And  abide  in  the  blessing  of  Yahweh. 

1 A  discussion  of  the  various  theories  about  the  book  will  be  found  in 
Kautzsch,  Apokryphen  und  Pseudeplgraphen  des  Alten  Test.  (1900),  p.  235  f. 
(by  Ryssel).  The  grammatical  difficulty  of  the  passage  in  the  prologue  on 
which  all  depends  is  relieved  by  parallels  cited  by  Deissmann,  Bibelstudien, 
p.  255;  cf.  also  SchUrer,  Gesch.  des  Jtid.  Volkes*  III,  p.  159. 


THE  GREEK  PERIOD  429 

Those  who  serve  her  serve  the  Holy  One ; 

And  her  lovers  Yahweh  loves. 

He  who  hearkens  to  her  shall  judge  rightly ; 

And  he  who  listens  to  her  shall  abide  in  her  house." ' 

This  wisdom  is  not  the  possession  of  man  alone.  She  is  an 
attribute  of  God  Himself.  When  the  author  exhorts  her  to  utter 
her  own  praise,  she  declares  that  she  came  forth  from  the  mouth 
of  the  Most  High,  that  she  has  her  throne  in  the  heights,  that 
she  alone  has  circled  the  earth,  and  walked  through  the  depths  of 
the  abyss.1  It  is  evident  that  the  personification  has  gone  far 
toward  making  wisdom  the  supreme  emanation  from  the  God- 
head. But  we  soon  see  that  cosmogonic  speculation  is  far  from 
the  author's  thought.  For  this  wisdom,  after  visiting  all  the  na- 
tions of  the  earth,  has  her  abiding-place  assigned  her  in  Israel. 

"  Then  the  Creator  of  all  things  commanded  me  ; 
And  my  Maker  gave  me  a  home. 
And  He  said  :    In  Jacob  take  up  thy  dwelling, 
And  in  Israel  receive  thy  possession." 

And  after  an  extended  panegyric  of  the  delights  of  wisdom,  the 
author  adds : 

"All  this  is  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  of  the  Most  High, 
The  Law  which  Moses  commanded 
As  a  possession  for  the  congregation  of  Jacob."  ' 

This  then  is  where  we  come  out :  the  true  wisdom  had  visited 
all  the  nations  of  the  earth.  But  in  none  of  them  had  she  chosen 
to  abide  except  in  Israel.  Here  she  had  taken  permanent  form 
in  the  Law  given  by  Moses.  In  Palestinian  circles  at  least  the 
pressure  of  Greek  thought  had  driven  men  to  take  a  firmer  hold 
on  the  Law  as  the  sufficient  philosophy.  By  studying  the  Law 
and  living  according  to  it,  all  the  practical  problems  of  life  are 
solved.  It  was  perhaps  with  a  view  to  discourage  speculative 
discussion  that  an  author  of  this  school  inserted  into  the  book  of 
Job  a  chapter  in  praise  of  wisdom  which,  though  justly  admired 

1  Ecclus.  4  "-".  I  have  followed  the  Hebrew  text  as  given  by  Peters,  Der 
Jiingit  Wiederaufgefttndene  Hebr&ische  Text  des  Buches  Ecclesiasticui 
(1902).  Similar  panegyrics  are  found  in  14  "-17,  15  '••. 

» Ibid.,  24«-«. 

'  Ibid. ,  24  *~M.     Read  the  whole  passage. 


430  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

for  the  beauty  of  its  thought,  is  an  evident  intrusion  in  the  com- 
position of  which  it  now  forms  a  part.1  In  this  chapter  it  is 
declared  in  effect  that  wisdom  in  the  highest  sense — the  philos- 
ophy that  would  solve  the  problems  of  the  universe — is  the  prop- 
erty of  God  alone.  At  the  same  time  there  is  a  wisdom  for 
man,  which  consists  in  the  fear  of  God — that  is,  in  religion — 
and  in  departing  from  evil — that  is,  in  a  righteous  life.  Sirach 
would  not  formulate  it  in  this  way,  but  he  would  accept  the 
general  principle  that  speculation  is  useless.  And  he  would  go 
one  step  farther  than  the  interpolator  in  declaring  that  God  has 
in  the  Law  communicated  enough  of  the  heavenly  wisdom  to 
serve  man's  need. 

But  if  indeed  the  philosophia  ultima  is  contained  in  the  book 
of  the  Law,  then  the  study  and  exposition  of  this  book  become 
of  the  first  importance.  And  as  one  can  study  better  under  a 
master  than  by  himself,  the  teacher  becomes  an  important  char- 
acter in  the  community.  Our  author  has  a  high  opinion  of  the 
profession  of  scribe,  as  we  shall  have  occasion  to  notice  a  little 
later.  And  to  his  mind  the  scribe  is  an  ethical  teacher.  In  his 
system  little  stress  is  laid  upon  liturgy,  but  much  upon  manners 
and  morals.  The  boundary  line  between  manners  and  morals  is 
not  more  distinctly  drawn  here  than  is  the  case  in  most  ancient 
systems.  The  result  in  the  case  of  ben  Sira  is  not  unpleasing. 
His  ideal  includes  patience,  courage,  modesty,  kindness,  temper- 
ance, chastity,  and  prudence.  Particular  cautions  are  given 
with  reference  to  evil  associates.  Friendship  is  praised  as  one  of 
the  best  of  privileges.  Intimacy  with  those  in  high  station  and 
with  the  wealthy  is  deprecated.  Enjoyment  of  the  good  things 
of  life  is  commended  if  only  due  moderation  be  observed. 

With  this  ethical  cosmopolitanism,  however,  the  blood  of  the 
Israelite  asserts  itself  in  hatred  of  the  old-time  enemies — Philis- 
tines and  Edomites — and  of  the  new  sectaries,  "  the  foolish  peo- 
ple that  dwell  in  Shechem. "  The  present  rule  of  the  Gentiles  is 
felt  as  a  reproach  ;  a  prayer  is  uttered  that  it  may  come  to  an 
end  and  that  the  tribes  of  Jacob  may  again  be  set  in  their  own 
land.  There  is  no  zeal,  however  ;  there  are  no  fantastic  dreams 
of  a  personal  Messiah,  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven.  No 
more  is  there  any  hope  of  a  future  life  in  our  sense  of  the  word  ; 
nor  is  there  any  hint  of  a  resurrection.  In  the  abode  of  the 

1  Job,  28. 


THE   GREEK   PERIOD  431 

departed  none  praise  God.1  All  the  more  reason  is  there  that 
men  should  repent  in  this  life.  The  lot  of  men  is  apportioned 
by  God  according  to  justice  and  also  with  mercy.  The  problem 
which  wrung  the  heart  of  the  author  of  the  book  of  Job  seems 
not  to  give  any  more  trouble.  And  yet  our  author  stands  on 
the  ground  of  complete  individualism — he  believes  that  God 
deals  with  every  man  directly. 

The  roll  of  fame  in  which  this  book  praises  the  great  men  of 
Israel  omits  the  names  of  Ezra  and  of  Daniel — a  phenomenon  of 
the  utmost  importance.  To  those  names  which  we  know  from  the 
earlier  Scriptures  it  adds  one,  that  of  Simon  the  high-priest, 
apparently  a  contemporary  of  the  author.  This  man,  apparently 
a  worthy  head  of  the  community,  is  praised  for  his  care  of  the 
Temple.  He  is  said  to  have  strengthened  the  building  and  to 
have  provided  it  with  a  reservoir.  It  has  been  plausibly  con- 
jectured that  such  works  were  undertaken  in  the  time  of  Antio- 
chus  the  Great,  who,  when  he  took  possession  of  Syria,  found 
it  to  his  interest  to  conciliate  the  Jews.  But  of  this  we  can  have 
no  certain  knowledge. 

The  passage  devoted  to  Simon  gives  us  a  vivid  impression  of 
the  effect  which  the  Temple  worship  must  have  had  upon  the 
faithful  Jew.  We  read  of  the  magnificent  presence  of  the  high- 
priest  in  his  robes,  accompanied  by  his  train  of  inferior  clergy. 
In  solemn  array  they  lay  the  wood  upon  the  altar  and  the  chief 
minister  pours  out  the  libation.  The  trumpets  sound  a  mighty 
blast  and  the  worshippers  fall  upon  their  faces  and  offer  their 
supplications: 

"Then  the  singers  made  melody  with  their  voices, 
And  over  the  multitude  sounded  sweet  harmony. 
The  people  of  the  Most  High  uttered  their  prayers 
In  supplication  before  the  All-pitying ; 
Until  he  *  had  completed  the  service  of  Yahweh, 
And  had  brought  before  Him  that  which  was  commanded. 
Then  he  came  down  and  lifted  his  hands 
Over  all  the  congregation  of  Israel, 
And  the  blessing  of  Yahweh  was  on  his  lips 
And  in  the  name  of  Yahweh  he  made  his  boast. 
Yet  a  second  time  they  prostrated  themselves 
To  receive  the  benediction  from  his  lips."1 

1  Ecclus.  ly*7  f.  f  Simon  is  here  the  subject. 

1  Ecclus.  50  '*-".     The  whole  chapter  is  most  interesting. 


432  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

In  possession  of  this  imposing  liturgy  and  confident  that  it  had 
a  perfect  rule  of  life  revealed  in  the  Tora,  Judaism  was  reconcil- 
ing itself  to  the  apparently  insignificant  place  which  it  held 
in  the  economy  of  the  world — is  not  consciousness  of  the  favour 
of  God  more  than  worldly  wealth  and  position  ?  And  yet  the 
faithful  must  sometimes  have  found  it  hard  to  hold  fast  to  their 
belief.  Their  lot  was  not  an  enviable  one.  Our  author  himself 
betrays  that  life  had  many  anxieties.  There  were,  first  of  all,  dan- 
gers to  personal  security.  Our  author's  prayer  for  protection  says 
in  so  many  words  that  his  life  had  been  endangered  by  slander — 
"an  accusation  to  the  king  from  an  unrighteous  tongue."  l  So 
serious  was  the  situation  that  he  despaired  of  life.  In  another 
passage  he  speaks  of  the  frequent  and  dangerous  journeys  which 
he  had  undertaken.  In  the  conflict  between  Syria  and  Egypt, 
the  adherents  of  either  kingdom  might  easily  be  in  danger  when 
the  other  party  was  in  power.  His  grandson's  final  emigration 
to  Egypt  shows  the  necessity  to  which  many  Jews  yielded  in  this 
period.  Faithful  to  the  Law  and  wandering  over  the  face  of  the 
world — our  author  was  a  type  of  his  race. 

The  book  of  Proverbs  adds  almost  nothing  to  the  picture 
drawn  for  us  by  the  son  of  Sirach.  The  book  differs  from  the 
one  we  have  been  considering  in  that  it  represents  several  stages 
of  growth  and  in  that  it  has  a  pseudonym  at  its  head.  The  body 
of  the  work  is  a  collection  of  maxims  which  remind  us  of  Sirach 
and  which  may  be  called  somewhat  more  primitive  in  tone, 
though  the  point  of  view  is  substantially  the  same.*  This  nucleus 
contains  directions  for  a  prudent  life,  based  on  the  Law  and 
ignoring  speculation.  The  use  of  the  name  of  Solomon  must  be 
judged  as  in  the  case  of  other  books  of  the  time.  To  show  that 
the  ancient  kings  of  Israel  were  patrons  of  literature  like  the 
Ptolemies  has  already  been  seen  to  be  one  of  the  aims  of  the 
Jews  in  this  period.  This  part  of  the  book  may  be  a  century 
older  than  Ecclesiasticus.  Some  time  after  it  was  put  into  circu- 
lation it  received  as  a  preface  the  elaborate  panegyric  on  wisdom 
which  fills  the  first  nine  chapters  of  our  text.  This  also  reminds 
us  of  Sirach,  though  it  is  more  elaborate.  In  it  the  personifica- 

1  Ecclus.  51  *.  The  whole  chapter,  which  in  tone  reminds  us  of  the  Psalms, 
should  be  read.  A  prayer  for  the  people  is  contained  in  36  (33)  u". 

1  Prov.  10* — 22  u.  The  minor  appendices  to  this  collection,  though  inter- 
esting, give  no  additional  light  on  the  date. 


THE   GREEK   PERIOD  433 

tion  of  wisdom,  even  more  distinctly  than  in  Sirach,  makes  her  an 
emanation  of  the  divine : 

"  Yahweh  formed  me  as  the  beginning  of  His  creation, 
The  first  of  His  works  in  days  of  yore. 
From  of  old  was  I  fashioned, 
In  the  beginning  at  the  origin  of  the  earth. 
When  there  were  no  depths  I  was  brought  forth, 
When  there  were  no  fountains  of  water. 
Before  the  mountains  were  planted, 
Before  the  hills  was  I  brought  forth ; 
When  He  had  not  made  the  earth 
Nor  the  first  of  the  clods  of  the  world. 
When  He  established  the  heavens,  I  was  there. 
When  He  marked  off  the  horizon  on  the  face  of  the  deep. 

Then  I  was  at  His  side  as  a  master  workman ; 
I  was  His  delight  day  by  day, 
Sporting  before  Him  at  every  time 
Rejoicing  at  the  completion  of  His  world"  * 

The  advance  in  the  thought  as  compared  with  Sirach  (quoted 
above)  is  in  the  greater  distinctness  with  which  wisdom  is 
affirmed  to  be  the  Demiurge — the  executive  officer  of  the  supreme 
divinity.  It  is  not  possible  to  avoid  seeing  Greek  influence 
here ;  and  that  here  is  the  germ  of  later  Gnostic  speculation, 
Jewish  and  Christian,  is  equally  obvious.  The  writer,  however, 
is  far  from  the  abstruse  theology  of  a  Philo.  We  have  no  reason 
to  seek  for  allegories  beneath  his  animated  poetry.  Monotheism 
is,  of  course,  completely  established.  There  is  no  longer  a  pos- 
sibility of  other  gods  coming  into  competition  with  Yahweh. 
Yahweh's  character  also  is  known.  He  is  a  God  of  justice.  His 
reward  is  given  to  the  righteous  and  it  is  given  in  this  life.  God 
deals  with  the  individual ;  each  is  responsible  to  Him.  But  re- 
ward and  punishment  are  not  looked  for  beyond  this  life.  Sheol 
continues  to  be  the  obscure  abode  of  the  shades,  a  place  in  which 
there  is  no  opportunity  to  praise  God.  The  duties  of  life  are 
justice,  temperance,  social  righteousness.  The  cultus  seems  to 
be  taken  as  a  matter  of  course.  There  is  no  mention  of  the 
Messiah.  In  all  these  respects  the  marks  of  date  seem  to  be  the 
same  that  we  find  in  Sirach.1 

1  Pro*.  8  M-*7-  *° f.  Slight  changes  in  the  text  may  be  justified  from  the  com- 
mentaries cited  below. 

*  For  this  reason,  as  well  as  on  linguistic  grounds,  recent  scholars  are  pretty 


434  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

We  have  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  author  we  have  been 
considering  agreed  with  Sirach  in  making  the  Jewish  Law  the 
text-book  of  ethics.  The  wisdom  of  God  was  therein  embodied 
for  the  instruction  of  men.  The  natural  result  of  this  exaltation 
of  a  book  was  the  increased  importance  of  the  guild  of  scribes, 
and  also  the  greater  prominence  of  meetings  for  instruction  in  the 
life  of  the  people.  Some  provision  for  making  the  Law  known 
must  have  been  made  comparatively  early.  Deuteronomy  com- 
mands that  the  Levites  (though  at  long  intervals)  should  read  the 
Law  to  the  people.  This  command  was  not  carried  out,  so  far  as 
we  know,  before  the  exile.  But  in  the  time  of  Malachi  we  found 
an  allusion  to  gatherings  in  which  those  who  were  in  earnest  in 
obeying  God  talked  to  each  other  of  the  things  of  religion.  The 
Chronicler  gives  an  account  of  a  great  assembly  at  which  the  Law 
was  read  by  Ezra  and  expounded  by  the  Levites.  This  is  in- 
deed an  imaginative  sketch,  but  it  reflected  an  actual  need  of  the 
people.  As  time  went  on  the  need  became  more  pressing.  The 
ancient  language  of  Israel,  in  which  the  Law  was  written,  was 
falling  more  and  more  into  disuse.  The  Jews  of  Alexandria  and 
other  Hellenistic  cities  were  learning  Greek ;  the  Jews  of  Pales- 
tine and  the  eastern  provinces  were  adopting  Aramaic.  In  this 
state  of  affairs  new  methods  of  making  the  Law  known  were 
called  for.  The  result  was  the  development  of  what  is  called  the 
synagogue. 

As  religion  is  social  in  its  working,  it  is  very  possible  that  the 
beginnings  of  the  synagogue  may  go  back  to  the  time  of  the  ex- 
ile. We  learn  from  Ezekiel  that  the  people  frequently  came 
about  him  to  hear  his  revelations.  Such  informal  gatherings 
were  not  allowed  to  worship  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word — for 
worship,  that  is,  sacrifice,  could  be  offered  only  at  Jerusalem.  But 
prayer  and  the  study  of  the  Law  could  not  be  confined  to  a  single 
place.  After  it  was  thoroughly  understood  that  the  Law  was 
Israel's  rule  of  life,  the  Sabbath  was  improved  in  reading  and 
studying  this  rule.  The  synagogues  were  primarily  Sabbath 
bchools.  But  they  also  became  places  of  worship,  because  the 
congregation  united  in  prayer  before  the  lesson,  and  in  thanks- 
giving after  it.  An  important  part  of  the  service  was  the  oral 

well  agreed  in  putting  the  book  in  the  Greek  period.  See  Toy  in  the  Inter- 
national Critical  Commentary;  Wildeboer  in  the  Kurzer  Handkommentar 
and  Frankenberg  in  Nowack's  Handkommentar. 


THE   GREEK  PERIOD  435 

exposition  or  exhortation  delivered  by  one  of  the  more  compe- 
tent members  of  the  congregation.  It  does  not  seem  strained  to 
suppose  that  the  books  of  Jesus  ben  Sira  and  Proverbs  are  the 
condensed  results  of  a  lifetime  of  such  exhortation. 

The  importance  of  the  synagogue  was  increased  by  the  prom- 
inence given  to  city  life  in  this  period.  In  the  composite 
city  each  nationality  was  allowed  its  own  customs  and  a  certain 
measure  of  autonomy.  Even  in  towns  where  the  Jews  did  not 
possess  the  full  franchise  they  had  recognised  officers  and  courts 
chosen  by  themselves,  administering  the  ancestral  Law.  The 
lines  between  civil  and  ecclesiastical  life  were  not  yet  drawn  ; 
each  community  being  both  a  religious  and  a  political  corpora- 
tion. This  put  a  tremendous  power  of  discipline  into  the  hands 
of  the  chief  men.  The  Chronicler  assumes  that  this  power  was 
exercised  in  the  time  of  Ezra,1  for  we  read  of  a  resolution  that 
if  any  one  should  not  come  to  the  public  assembly  (called  to 
consider  the  question  of  foreign  marriages)  "  his  property  should 
be  devoted,  and  he  himself  should  be  separated  from  the  congre- 
gation of  the  captivity."  In  representing  this  as  the  method  in 
Ezra's  time,  the  author  no  doubt  lets  his  wish  become  the  father 
of  his  thought.  Even  for  the  Chronicler's  own  time  it  is  doubt- 
ful whether  a  popular  assembly  at  Jerusalem  could  go  so  far  as 
to  sequestrate  a  man's  property  without  the  consent  of  the  civil 
governor.  But  any  community  may  withdraw  its  intercourse 
from  an  obnoxious  member,  and  the  extent  to  which  this  was 
actually  done  by  the  Jews  is  evidenced  by  the  Samaritan  schism. 

The  sum  of  the  matter  is  this  :  During  the  period  now  under 
review  the  synagogue  received  its  growth  and  became  the  centre 
of  the  social  as  well  as  of  the  religious  life  of  the  scattered  Jew  - 
ish,  communities.  It  possessed,  at  any  rate,  the  power  of  excom- 
munication, and  in  some  instances  it  also  inflicted  civil  pains  and 
penalties.  The  importance  of  such  an  institution  for  the  later  his- 
tory of  Judaism  needs  no  demonstration.  As  to  dates  we  can 
only  say  that  it  seems  to  be  fully  developed  before  the  Maccabean 
uprising.1 

1  Ezra,  lo8,  where  the  princes  and  elders  are  named  as  the  administrative 
body. 

1  The  whole  subject  is  thoroughly  discussed  by  Schiirer,  Gesch.  des  Jiid. 
Volkes,*  II.,  p.  427  ff.  where  a  considerable  literature  is  cited.  The  Eng 
lish  translation  of  this  work,  made  from  the  second  German  edition,  gives 


OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

The  guild  of  scribes  was  glorified  by  the  Chronicler  in  the  per- 
son of  Ezra.  It  is  interesting  to  notice  the  satisfaction  with 
which  ben  Sira  dwells  upon  this  vocation  when  he  compares  it 
with  other  vocations  or  trades.  In  contrast  with  the  husband- 
man or  artificer,  who  is  compelled  to  put  all  his  thought  upon  sor- 
did details,  he  who  has  leisure  for  study  "will  seek  out  the  wis- 
dom of  the  ancients."  The  object  of  his  study  is  the  Law  of 
the  Most  High.  He  who  devotes  himself  to  this  object  shall 
not  only  serve  before  great  men  and  appear  before  princes;  he 
shall  be  called  for  in  the  public  council,  and  shall  be  foremost 
in  the  congregation.  The  most  natural  interpretation  of  the 
language  refers  it  to  the  opportunity  of  the  preacher  in  the  syna- 
gogue. What  gave  the  order  of  scribes  such  prominence  in  the 
community  was  the  teaching  function  which  they  exercised  reg- 
ularly for  the  benefit  of  the  people.1 

The  wisdom  literature  thus  far  considered,  shows  for  the  most 
part  a  complacent  tone.  The  authors  have  disciplined  them- 
selves by  study,  and  do  not  expect  too  much  of  life.  Their  ethi- 
cal maxims  give  them  a  sufficient  rule  of  life,  and  their  faith  in 
God  and  His  Law  serves  as  a  working  hypothesis  of  the  universe. 
The  world  was  not  all  they  could  wish  it,  but  they  were  able  to 
content  themselves  with  tradition  and  the  practical  reason.  There 
is  in  their  utterances  no  evidence  of  internal  conflict.  But  not  all 
their  contemporaries  could  rest  within  the  limits  which  tradition 
and  the  practical  reason  fixed.  This  is  startlingly  brought  home 
to  us  by  the  book  which  we  call  Ecclesiastes,  and  which  calls 
itself  Koheleth  * — one  of  the  most  remarkable  monuments  of  He- 
brew literature.  The  author  takes  his  stand  on  the  tradition 
which  makes  Solomon  the  most  prosperous  and  the  wisest  of 

substantially  the  same  material,  II,  2,  p.  44  ff.  Cf.  also  Bousset,  Religion 
des  Judentums  im  Neutestamentlichen  Zeitalter  (1903),  p.  149  ff.  The  in- 
scription already  alluded  to  shows  that  a  Jewish  "place  of  prayer"  existed 
in  the  vicinity  of  Alexandria  as  early  as  222  B.C.  Other  inscriptions  from 
the  Delta  show  that  Jewish  synagogues  existed  there  as  early  as  150  B.C. 
Cf.  Wilamowitz  in  the  Sittungsberichte  der  Berliner  Akademie,  1902,  p. 
1093,  and  Willrich,  Juden  und  Griechen,  p.  151  ff. 

1  The  praise  of  the  scribe  is  contained  in  Ecclus.  38  " — 39  u. 

'The  name  has  given  the  commentators  much  trouble.  Its  connexion 
with  Kahal  (assembly  or  congregation)  is  obvious,  but  more  cannot  be  said 
with  certainty.  The  reader  may  examine  Cheyne,  Job  and  Solomon,  p.  298  f.r 
which  gives  all  that  can  be  said  on  the  subject. 


THE  GREEK  PERIOD  437 

kings.  In  the  person  of  this  king  he  will  set  forth  the  experi- 
ence of  humanity  at  its  best.  What  is  the  result  of  this  experi- 
ence ?  Only  weariness.  The  text  of  the  book,  which  is  also  the 
result  of  all  the  author's  thinking  and  all  his  observation  is  :  All 
is  nothingness  !  Absolute  nothingness  ! 

To  prove  this  he  recounts  the  experience  of  Solomon — under 
which  we  see  his  own  experience  thinly  veiled.  The  first  and 
most  deadly  thing  in  life  is  the  eternal  sameness  of  things.  One 
generation  follows  another,  the  sun  makes  its  round,  the  winds 
shift  from  one  quarter  to  the  other.  But  all  this  is  only  the 
rotation  of  a  wheel,  a  continual  grind  without  any  real  progress. 
A  treadmill  weariness  lies  over  everything ;  there  is  nothing  of 
which  one  can  say  that  it  is  new.  The  former  generations  have 
perished,  and  their  history  is  forgotten ;  so  it  shall  be  with  those 
now  on  the  stage,  and  with  those  that  follow  after,  for  ever. 

But  if  it  be  said  this  is  the  conclusion  of  an  observer  who 
stands  on  the  outside  and  does  not  get  at  the  heart  of  things,  we 
will  go  into  personal  experience.  Let  a  Solomon  with  unbounded 
resources  taste  all  the  alleged  sweets  of  life.  He  comes  through 
it  all  to  the  same  conclusion — the  nothingness  of  it  all,  and  the 
uselessness  of  exertion.  The  pleasures  of  the  table,  art  and 
architecture,  great  public  works,  gardens,  parks,  a  magnificent 
establishment,  a  harem  of  choice  beauties — he  has  tried  them  all, 
and  all  are  equally«unable  to  give  real  satisfaction.  Nor  did  in- 
tellectual pursuits — the  supposed  delights  of  study — give  any- 
thing more  :  "  I  gave  my  mind  to  know  wisdom  and  knowledge 
and  madness  and  folly  ;  '  I  discovered  that  this  also  is  a  striving 
after  wind.  For  in  much  wisdom  is  much  vexation,  and  he  that 
increases  knowledge  increases  pain."  The  reason  of  this  is  two- 
fold. First,  man  cannot  attain  real  knowledge.  It  is  God's 
plan  that  all  man's  striving  shall  in  this  regard  be  fruitless.1  In 
the  second  place,  the  wise  man  has  no  advantage  from  his  wis- 
dom ;  he  lives  no  longer  and  he  enjoys  no  more  than  the  fool. 
One  event  happens  to  all.  The  wise  man  cannot  even  claim  the 
poor  advantage  of  a  posthumous  reputation,  for  all  alike  are  in  a 
little  while  forgotten. 

1  Things  are  known  by  their  opposite*.  Hence  he  studied  folly,  so  as  to 
distinguish  true  wisdom. 

'This  is  most  distinctly  expressed  in  Eccles.  8  '".,  but  compare  al*o  ili. 
just  quoted. 


438  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

The  common  opinion  consoled  itself  with  the  thought  that  a 
man  lives  in  his  posterity.  But  this  again  is  a  delusion.  How 
often  do  we  see  a  wise  man  die  and  leave  behind  him  a  foolish 
son.  Can  there  be  consolation  where  there  is  such  a  possibility? 
Frequently  enough  we  see  a  man  toiling  to  gather  wealth,  deny- 
ing himself  the  comforts  of  life,  in  order  that  his  children  may 
be  provided  for.  But  it  is  in  itself  an  evil  that  a  man  should 
postpone  his  enjoyment  of  what  he  has  earned  until  it  is  too  late. 
All  that  is  certain  is  that  the  recurrence  of  times  and  seasons  will 
undo  all  that  has  been  done.1  The  only  good,  if  good  we  may 
call  it,  is  that  one  should  enjoy  his  little  morsel  while  he  may. 

Epicureanism  is  doubtless  the  logical  outcome  of  this  reason- 
ing, as  is  evident  when  we  consider  the  next  point.  This  is : 
The  moral  order  of  the  world  is  not  discoverable.  The  preva- 
lence of  injustice  is  notorious.  Were  justice  done,  the  righteous 
and  wicked  would  change  places.  We  are  reminded  of  Job's 
contention  that  the  wicked  are  the  ones  who  prosper.  The  com- 
mon opinion  piously  consoles  itself  with  the  thought  that  God 
will  surely  judge.  But  this  cannot  be  maintained  (our  author 
holds) — rather  must  we  confess  that  God  purposely  lets  injustice 
get  the  upper  hand.  His  purpose  is  to  show  men  that  they  are 
no  better  than  the  brutes.  Who  requires  that  the  brutes  shall  be 
ruled  with  justice,  so  that  the  wolf  shall  be  punished  for  his  cru- 
elty and  the  lamb  rewarded  for  his  meekness  ?  Just  as  absurd 
would  it  be  to  insist  that  men  should  be  treated  on  a  different 
system.  They  are  in  the  same  class  with  the  animals :  "  All  go 
to  one  place  ;  all  are  of  dust  and  all  return  to  dust.  Who  knows 
whether  the  spirit  of  man  ascends,  while  the  spirit  of  the  brute 
goes  below?"1  The  author  here  touches  upon  the  theory  of  a 
future  life  only  to  reject  it.  His  conclusion  is  that  of  the  pessi- 
mist— death  is  better  than  life  because  it  delivers  one  from  the 
weariness  and  pain  of  the  struggle  for  existence. 

This  pessimism  is  akin  to  that  with  which  we  are  familiar  in 
modern  times.  But  the  author  is  faithful  to  his  Hebrew  training 
in  that  he  holds  fast  to  the  belief  in  God.  This  is  perhaps 
easier  to  an  oriental,  to  whom  an  absolute  monarch  is  part  of  the 
constitution  of  things.  God  is  the  absolute  ruler,  and  whatever 

1  This  is  the  meaning  of  the  passage  about  a  time  for  everything,  3  l~*. 
*  Eccles.  3  "•".     Verse 1T  is  evidently  an   interpolation,  as  is  shown  bf 
Siegfried.     As  to  the  meaning  of  the  passage  there  can  be  no  doubt. 


THE   GREEK   PERIOD  439 

comes  to  pass  is  willed  by  Him.  But  what  His  motive  is,  or  on 
what  principles  He  rules  His  universe,  is  beyond  man's  compre- 
hension. The  acknowledgment  of  omnipotence  as  the  leading 
divine  attribute  does  not  carry  with  it  any  recognition  of  justice 
or  of  love.  The  old  covenant  God  of  Israel  has  disappeared 
from  view.  We  may  say  that  the  wider  outlook  has  resulted  in 
the  practical  shipwreck  of  the  Jewish  faith.  The  abstract  belief 
that  there  is  a  God  remains,  but  this  is  nothing  in  which  the 
heart  can  rest. 

A  volume  expressing  these  views  could  not  find  a  place  among 
the  sacred  books  of  the  Hebrews  without  modification.  And  so 
we  find  that  the  book  has  been  annotated  by  a  disciple  of  the  old 
school.1  We  may  suppose  the  original  author  to  have  attained  a 
reputation  for  wisdom,  and  that  one  of  his  pupils  was  so  im- 
pressed by  the  value  of  his  book  that  he  thought  to  correct  its 
errors  by  skilful  insertions  of  his  own.  These  insertions  tone 
down  the  strong  statements  of  the  original  writer  or  give  them  a 
turn  less  startling  to  the  pious  mind.  Had  not  these  additions 
been  made,  the  reputation  of  Solomon  would  not  have  saved  the 
book.  With  them  included  it  may  pass  (and  doubtless  did  pass) 
for  the  sage  reflections  of  a  penitent  rou6,  such  as  Solomon  was 
in  popular  tradition.  Such  a  man  might  debate  with  himself  on 
the  problems  of  life,  leaning  now  to  one  theory  now  to  another, 
and  as  the  book  concludes  with  a  strong  exhortation  to  fear  God 
and  keep  His  commandments,  its  end  was  allowed  to  justify  its 
eccentric  means. 

In  the  variety  of  voices  which  it  lets  us  hear,  the  book  of  Ec- 
clesiastes  is  almost  a  type  of  the  period  we  have  been  discussing. 
The  characteristic  of  the  period  is  the  confusion  in  the  minds  of 
men  caused  by  the  introduction  of  a  new  civilisation.  We  have 
seen  that  in  some  cases  the  result  was  a  stouter  affirmation  of  the 
old  system.  The  insidious  approaches  of  Hellenism  caused  the 
narrower  Jews  to  shut  themselves  more  closely  within  their  ex- 
clusive system.  Others  responded  to  Gentile  aggression  by  re- 
viving the  Messianic  hope.  But  to  the  more  reflective  minds 
Greek  thought  started  problems  to  which  they  were  able  to  find 

1  It  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  the  contradictory  assertions  found  in  our 
present  book  of  Ecclesiastes  are  written  by  the  same  man.  The  true  state 
of  the  case  is  brought  out  by  Siegfried's  commentary,  which  distinguishes  the 
documents  by  the  use  of  different  type.  The  result  is  illuminating. 


44O  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

no  adequate  answer.  Their  speculative  belief  was  indeed  left 
untouched.  It  was  not  with  them  a  question  of  many  gods  in 
place  of  the  One.  But  what  good  did  a  philosophic  theory  of 
the  oneness  of  God  accomplish  if  the  old  feeling  of  Yahweh's 
covenant  relation  to  Israel  was  gone  ?  In  multitudes  of  Jewish 
minds  the  result  of  this  conflict  must  have  been  this  practical 
scepticism.  An  observer  of  the  course  of  history  at  this  time 
might  have  anticipated  the  fading  out  of  vital  Jewish  religion. 
Fortunately  for  the  future  of  that  religion,  and  for  Christianity  as 
well,  the  process  was  disturbed  by  violent  political  events.  By 
these  the  contradictions  which  were  beginning  to  sink  out  of 
sight  were  again  forced  into  prominence,  and  an  entirely  new 
direction  was  given  to  the  history  of  Judaism. 


CHAPTER   XIX 

A   NEW   HEROIC  AGE 

ANTIOCHUS  III,  called  the  Great,  obtained  possession  of  Pales- 
tine by  the  battle  of  Paneas,1  B.C.  198.  In  the  years  that  fol- 
lowed he  extended  his  empire  over  the  other  dependencies  of 
Egypt  and  over  the  greater  part  of  Asia  Minor.  These  successes 
made  him  dream  of  reconquering  the  territory  that  had  belonged 
to  Alexander.  But  when  he  went  so  far  as  to  invade  Europe,  he 
came  into  conflict  with  the  Romans.  This  rising  power  inflicted 
a  crushing  defeat  upon  him  in  the  year  190  B.C.*  In  conse- 
quence he  was  obliged  to  pay  an  enormous  indemnity  and  to 
resign  the  greater  part  of  his  conquests.  Syria  was  not  directly 
affected.  But  the  kingdom  of  the  Seleucids  was  so  weakened 
that  its  eastern  provinces  (always  restive)  found  it  easy  to  revolt. 
The  kings  of  this  line  were  from  this  time  on  almost  constantly 
at  war,  while  their  need  of  money  became  chronic — both  on 
account  of  these  wars  and  because  of  the  sums  paid  to  the 
Romans.  How  their  subjects  were  oppressed  by  the  unceasing 
levies  of  taxes  may  be  imagined.  And  in  addition  to  the  taxes 
the  monarchs  were  compelled  to  resort  to  other  devices.  A 
favorite  expedient  was  the  plunder  of  some  prominent  temple. 
It  was  in  an  exploit  of  this  kind  that  Antiochus  the  Great  met 
his  death.1 

1  The  town  which  still  bears  the  name  Banias  is  at  the  extreme  northern 
end  of  Palestine,  at  the  foot  of  Hermon.  The  large  fountain  which  made 
the  place  sacred  is  one  of  the  sources  of  the  Jordan.  On  the  site,  see  G.  A. 
Smith,  Historical  Geography,  '  p.  473  ff.,  SchOrer,  Geschichte  dei  Jiid. 
Volkes,*  II,  p.  158  ff.  The  name  in  New  Testament  times  was  Cesarea 
Philippi. 

1  On  the  battle  of  Magnesia,  cf.  Mommsen,  Romische  Geschichte*,  I,  p.  748 
(English  translation,  II,  p.  271  f.). 

1  According  to  Mommsen,  ibid,  I,  p.  750.  There  seems  to  be  some  con- 
fusion between  Antiochus  III  and  Antiochus  IV.  Both  are  said  to  have  met 
their  death  in  plundering  a  temple  in  Elymais.  Cf.  Polybius,  XXXI,  n, 
and  Josephus  Ant.,  XII,  9,  I. 


442  OLD  TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

Seleucus  IV,  who  next  came  to  the  throne,  does  .not  especially 
concern  this  history.  He  was  succeeded  by  his  brother  Antio- 
chus  IV  (Epiphanes)  in  the  year  175  B.C.1  This  monarch  is 
described  as  one  of  those  irresponsible  and  erratic  characters 
who  are  not  infrequently  developed  by  the  possession  of  power, 
and  whose  vagaries  amuse,  except  when  they  distress,  their  sub- 
jects.1 So  far  as  our  history  is  concerned,  his  personal  character 
is  not  much  in  evidence.  Almost  any  king  of  his  line  might 
have  acted  as  he  did  in  the  same  circumstances.  A  certain  levity 
in  his  treatment  of  a  grave  problem  distinguished  him  from  his 
predecessors — this  is  all  that  we  can  say.  Whether  he  acted 
on  the  conviction  attributed  to  the  philosopher  by  a  modern 
historian,  that  all  religions  are  equally  false,  we  do  not  know. 
He  at  any  rate  forgot  that  to  the  statesman  all  are  equally 
useful. 

It  was  to  be  expected  that  the  old  quarrel  between  Egypt  and 
Syria  would  break  out  again.  Antiochus  III  had  given  his 
daughter  Cleopatra  in  marriage  to  Ptolemy  V  (Epiphanes)  and 
the  Egyptians  claimed  that  she  was  to  receive  Palestine  as  her 
dowry.  The  claim  was  resisted  by  Antiochus  IV  and  war  broke 
out  in  173  B.C.  Antiochus  gained  the  advantage,  invaded  Egypt, 
and  even  besieged  Alexandria.1  The  king  was  called  away  by 
affairs  of  importance  and  did  not  obtain  possession  of  the  city. 
He  went,  however,  to  Jerusalem,  where  disorders  had  broken  out. 
His  real  object  was  to  raise  money,  and  he  had  no  scruples 
which  would  prevent  his  plundering  the  Temple  of  Yahweh,  as 
he  and  his  fathers  had  plundered  other  sanctuaries.  We  may 
suppose  he  made  the  disorders  in  the  city  an  excuse  for  what  he 
had  already  determined  to  do. 

1  On  the  chronology  of  the  Seleucid  period,  cf.  E.  Meyer,  Forschungen 
zur  alten  Geschickte,  II,  p.  460  f.  ;  the  dates  are  carefully  reckoned  by 
Schiirer,  Geschichte  des  Jiidischen  Volkes*,  I,  pp.  165-179. 

1  See  the  description  of  Antiochus  quoted  from  Polybius  by  Schiirer,8  I, 
p.  191  f.  (English  Transl.,  I,  p.  199  f.). 

»  As  to  the  question  between  the  parties,  it  is  sometimes  held  that  the 
revenues  of  the  district  were  alone  in  dispute.  But  possession  and  revenue 
usually  go  together,  and  the  endeavour  to  separate  them  here  seems  to  arise 
from  a  desire  to  harmonise  Josephus's  story  of  Joseph  the  taxgatherer  (A r'f., 
XII,  4)  with  the  fact  of  Syrian  supremacy  in  Palestine.  But  the  storf 
reproduced  by  Josephus  is  a  romance  of  Samaritan  origin;  cf.  Willrich, 
Juden  und  Griechen,  p.  99. 


A  NEW   HEROIC  AGE  443 

The  disorders  in  Jerusalem  are  easily  explained.  The  old 
party  divisions  had  become  acute  in  the  Syrian  and  Egyptian 
rivalry.  The  stricter  party,  which  was  opposed  to  the  encroach- 
ments of  Greek  culture  because  it  brought  Greek  religion — this 
party  was  apparently  favourable  to  the  Egyptian  as  compared 
with  the  Syrian  rule.  We  may  suppose  that  the  Egyptians  gave 
them  a  larger  measure  of  liberty.  The  laxer  party,  who  were  al- 
ready impressed  by  Greek  culture,  knew  of  Antiochus's  desire  to 
show  himself  the  apostle  of  Hellenism  and  to  bring  his  Jewish 
subjects  out  of  their  exclusiveness.  It  was  only  human  nature  to 
use  this  desire  of  his  to  further  their  own  ambitions.  The  polit- 
ical head  of  the  community  was  the  high-priest — at  this  time 
Onias,  a  champion  of  the  old  order.  Soon  after  his  accession 
one  Jason  is  said  to  have  promised  the  king  that  if  he  (Jason) 
were  made  high-priest  he  would  civilise  the  people  and  would  also 
pay  a  larger  tribute.  Both  promises  appealed  to  the  king  and 
Jason  was  put  in  place  of  Onias.  The  new  officer  carried  out 
his  promise,  first  by  erecting  a  gymnasium  in  which  the  people 
exercised  after  the  Greek  fashion.  The  new  diversion  became 
popular.  Many  even  of  the  priests  took  their  place  in  the  arena. 
Some  of  the  people  even  went  so  far  as  to  obliterate  their  circum- 
cision by  a  surgical  operation,  that  they  might  in  all  things  be- 
come Greeks.1  What  is  meant  by  Jason's  registering  the  inhabi- 
tants of  Jerusalem  among  the  citizens  of  Antioch  is  not  altogether 
clear.* 

All  this  was,  of  course,  an  abomination  to  the  stricter  party, 
and  they  were  not  likely  to  confine  themselves  to  merely  verbal 
expression  of  their  views.  The  Hellenising  party  were  equally 
unscrupulous  in  repelling  force  with  force.  Onias  was  obliged  to 
flee  the  city  and  his  adherents  suffered  with  him.  Egypt  was 
the  natural  refuge  for  those  who  were  compelled  to  emigrate,  and 
the  Jewish  colony  at  Alexandria  received  large  accessions  in  this 
period. 

1  The  nakedness  of  the  gymnasts  was  in  itself  an  offence  to  strict  Jewish 
feeling ;  and  it  exposed  the  tribal  mark  to  ridicule.  A  sign  of  the  increas- 
ing Hellenisation  of  the  Jews  is  the  number  of  Greek  names  that  now 
appear  in  the  history.  The  Jason  mentioned  above  had  changed  his  name 
from  Joshua  (or  Jesus  in  our  Greek  texts). 

*2  Mace.  4';  cf.  SchQrer,  Gesehichtt  des  J&d.  Volktf,*  II,  p.  113,  where 
evidence  is  given  that  the  inhabitants  of  Ptolemais  called  themselves  Anti. 
ochians. 


444  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

To  promise  an  increase  of  tribute  is  so  easy  a  way  of  getting 
an  office  that  we  are  not  surprised  to  find  it  tried  again.  One 
Menelaus  displaced  Jason  by  the  same  method  which  Jason  had 
used  against  Onias.  It  seems  certain  that  Menelaus  was  not  of 
the  high-priestly  family.  Jason,  on  the  other  hand,  is  said  to 
have  been  a  brother  of  the  Onias  whom  he  displaced.  One  was 
not  any  more  willing  to  give  up  the  dearly  bought  office  than 
the  other  had  been.1  After  Menelaus  had  taken  possession,  and 
while  Antiochus  was  busy  in  Egypt,  Jason  with  a  band  of  a 
thousand  bravoes  seized  Jerusalem  and  shut  Menelaus  up  in  the 
citadel.8 

It  was  on  account  of  these  tumults  that  Antiochus  came  to  Je- 
rusalem. His  real  object  was  attained  in  that  he  had  a  pretext 
for  plundering  the  Temple  of  its  treasures,  including  its  costly 
furniture.8  The  energetic  protests  of  the  people  produced  only  a 
carnival  of  bloodshed. 

This  was  only  the  prelude.  Two  years  later  Antiochus  again 
invaded  Egypt.  But  in  the  interval  the  Romans  had  taken  cog- 
nisance of  the  state  of  affairs.  The  Senate  had  passed  a  decree 
for  the  defence  of  Egypt,  and  Gaius  Popillius  Laenas  was  ap- 
pointed (with  two  others)  to  carry  the  decree  to  Egypt.  The 
name  of  the  Romans  was  a  power  in  the  East,  and  a  son  of 
Antiochus  the  Great  had  every  reason  to  fear  it.  The  uncivil 
but  unmistakable  injunction  of  Popillius  was  obeyed,  and  An- 
tiochus withdrew  from  Egypt — in  no  pleasant  frame  of  mind  we 
may  suppose.  Whether  he  personally  appeared  at  Jerusalem  at 
this  time  may  be  doubted.  But  his  animus  against  the  Jews  soon 
appeared.  He  resolved  that  the  Temple  should  be  made  a  place 
of  Greek  worship.  A  small  Greek  altar  was  erected  on  the  altar 
of  burnt-offering.  The  god  to  whom  sacrifice  was  to  be  offered 
is  apparently  Zeus,  of  whom  Antiochus  supposed  himself  to  be 
an  incarnation.  Divine  honours  had  been  claimed  by  the  earlier 

1 1  follow  the  tradition  as  given  by  2  Maccabees  and  Josephus.  But  the 
reader  must  bear  in  mind  that  in  this  time  of  strife  it  is  difficult  to  discover 
the  actual  course  of  events.  Willrich  (Juden  und  Griechen,  p.  1 19)  thinks 
that  Jason  was  not  high-priest  at  all  but  that  Menelaus  succeeded  directly  to 
Onias. 

»2  Mace.  5". 

*  I  Mace.  I t1"1*.  The  author  mentions  the  golden  incense  altar,  the  can- 
delabrum, the  shewbread  table,  the  censers,  bowls  and  saucers,  the  curtain, 
the  garlands  and  the  decorations  on  the  front  of  the  Temple. 


A  NEW  HEROIC  AGE  445 

members  of  the  Seleucid  line  in  imitation  of  Alexander. '  What 
was  new  in  Antiochus's  measures  was  the  force  brought  to  bear 
upon  the  recalcitrant. 

Upon  the  new  altar  swine  were  sacrificed  and  the  priests  were 
obliged  to  eat  of  the  sacrificial  flesh.  All  inhabitants  of  Jerusa- 
lem were  to  conform  to  the  new  rites  on  pain  of  death.  To  pre- 
vent a  revolt,  the  city  walls  were  razed  and  a  strong  Syrian  gar- 
rison was  placed  in  the  citadel. J  To  insure  thorough  work,  a 
travelling  commission  was  sent  to  all  the  towns  of  Judea  in  order 
to  compel  conformity  to  the  new  ordinances.  Possession  of 
books  of  the  Law  and  observance  of  the  Sabbath  were  punished 
with  death.  Mothers  were  executed  for  having  circumcised  their 
children.  Greek  altars  were  erected  everywhere,  and  the  heads 
of  families  were  called  upon  to  worship  at  them  under  penalty  of 
death. 

The  measures  adopted  show  that  the  king  and  his  counsellors 
did  not  understand  the  Hebrew  religion.  No  others  of  his  sub- 
jects refused  to  adopt  (at  least  outwardly)  the  cultus  commanded 
by  the  king.  The  exclusiveness  of  the  Hebrew  faith  was  to  the 
Greek  mind  of  the  day  incomprehensible.  It  was  interpreted  as 
sheer  obstinacy  or  as  hatred  of  the  human  race.  A  Greek  author 
recounts  that  Antiochus  penetrated  to  the  Most  Holy  chamber  of 
the  Temple ;  that  there  he  found  a  statue  of  a  long-bearded  man 
riding  upon  an  ass ;  that  he  supposed  this  statue  to  represent 
Moses  who  founded  Jerusalem  and  gathered  the  people  into  it, 
and  who  gave  them  their  misanthropic  and  vicious  laws.  The 
same  author  goes  on  to  tell  how  the  king,  to  show  his  hatred  of 
such  inhumanity,  resolved  to  eradicate  such  customs ;  he  there- 
fore sprinkled  the  statue  and  the  great  altar  with  the  blood  of 
swine  slain  in  sacrifice,  sprinkled  the  sacred  books  with  broth 
of  swine's  flesh,  compelled  priests  and  other  Jews  to  eat  of 
these  sacrifices,  and  extinguished  the  ever-burning  lamp  of  the 

1  Cheyne  (Encyclop.  Biblica,  I,  col.  23)  supposes  that  a  statue  of  Zeut 
was  also  erected  in  the  Temple.  But  nothing  is  said  of  this  in  the  Jewish 
account  either  of  the  desecration  or  of  the  rededication.  On  Antiochus'  de- 
votion to  Zeus  Olympics,  see  Nestle,  Marginalien,  p.  42,  and  in  the  Ztit- 
sckr.fiir  die  Alttest.  Wisstnsch.,  IV,  p.  248. 

1  Winckler  ingeniously  supposes  that  the  city  was  dedicated  to  Epiphanes 
and  that  it  received  the  name  Epiphaneia.  For  this,  however,  we  have  no 
historical  evidence ;  see  Schrader,  JCeilinichrifUn  und  altts  Testament,  * 
p.  303- 


446  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

Temple.  *  This  account  is  an  endeavour  to  defend  the  measures 
of  Antiochus.  It  shows  first  the  inability  of  the  Greek  mind  to 
comprehend  the  imageless  worship  of  the  Jews.  They  were  sure 
that  the  ancient  fane  must  have  some  material  object  of  worship, 
and  the  more  grotesque  they  could  make  this,  the  better  it  would 
account  for  the  Jews'  denial  of  its  existence.  For  the  worship- 
pers of  such  an  idol  to  refuse  to  bow  to  the  Olympian  Zeus 
would  be  obstinacy  indeed.  On  this  theory  the  measures  of 
Antiochus  were  justified — how  else  could  the  resistance  of  the 
barbarians  to  a  beneficent  reform  be  broken  down? 

From  the  point  of  view  of  the  author  of  the  persecution  the 
measures  taken  were  well  chosen.  These  measures  thoroughly 
polluted  priests  and  people — that  is,  made  them  unfit  for  the 
service  of  Yahweh.  If  the  divine  choice  of  place  could  be  nul- 
lified by  human  action,  this  was  the  way  to  nullify  it.  The 
altar  erected  in  the  sacred  court  was  indeed  a  desolating  abomi- 
nation. J  It  drove  Yahweh  away  and  desecrated  (deconsecrated) 
the  place  of  His  dwelling. 

Experience  shows  that  the  sacredness  of  an  ancient  site  cannot 
thus  be  destroyed.  People  who  have  a  living  faith  in  their  God 
know  that  His  will  cannot  permanently  be  thwarted  by  human 
action.  But  great  distress  of  mind  must  have  been  caused  (in 
the  case  before  us)  to  many  faithful  worshippers  of  Yahweh. 
Some  of  these  were  ready  to  acknowledge  that  the  desecration 
was  an  accomplished  fact.  They  argued  that  the  desecration 
itself  showed  that  Yahweh  had  deserted  His  land  and  Temple,  as 
He  had  done  once  before.  What  could  the  faithful  do  except 
flee  from  a  land  thus  accursed  ?  The  high-priest  Onias  had  been 
compelled  to  leave  the  country.  He  was  the  sole  repository  of 
sanctity  and  became  the  rallying  point  for  exiled  believers.  In 
these  circumstances  it  was  easy  for  him  to  feel  that  he  had  the 
responsibility  of  providing  a  new  centre  of  worship  for  his 
countrymen.  We  may  therefore  with  some  probability  attribute 
to  him  the  erection  of  a  new  Jewish  Temple  at  Leontopolis  in 
Egypt.  Later  Judaism  was  inclined  to  discredit  this  sanctuary 

1  Diodorus  Siculus,  Book  xxxiv,  quoted  by  Willrich,  Juden  und  Griechen, 
p.  62. 

'This  curious  phrase  (Dan.  II*1,  I211,  i  Mace.  iM)is  a  play  upon  the 
name  Lord  of  Heaven;  see  the  note  of  Nestle,  Zeitschr.  J.  d.  A  /(test.  Wis- 
tensch.,  IV,  p.  248. 


A   NEW   HEROIC  AGE  447 

and  so  its  origin  and  history  are  veiled  in  obscurity.1  But  of 
Onias's  good  faith  in  the  matter  we  need  have  no  doubt.  The 
temple  and  its  services  were  probably  modelled  after  the  one  at 
Jerusalem  ;  it  was  surrounded  with  a  heavy  wall ;  it  had  a  con- 
siderable staff  of  ministers.  We  know  that  it  was  frequented  by 
the  Jews  for  over  two  hundred  years  and  that  it  accumulated  a 
considerable  treasure.1  After  the  recovery  and  rededication  of 
the  Jerusalem  sanctuary,  an  awkward  situation  arose  for  the  de- 
votees of  the  one  in  Egypt.  But  as  they  encouraged  themselves 
by  a  prophecy  attributed  to  Isaiah,  they  may  have  cherished  the 
broader  anticipations  which  are  expressed  in  some  other  pro- 
phetic passages.5  If  Malachi  could  say  that  a  pure  offering  is 
brought  to  Yahweh  even  on  heathen  altars,  it  could  hardly  be 
wrong  to  worship  at  a  sanctuary  built  for  His  worship,  though 
outside  of  Jerusalem.  But  this  faint  attempt  at  a  larger  com- 
prehension had  no  appreciable  effect  on  later  thought. 

In  Judea  the  situation  was  as  desperate  as  can  well  be  im- 
agined. The  walls  were  razed,  the  houses  were  burned,  those  in- 
habitants who  showed  signs  of  adhering  to  the  ancestral  religion 
were  put  to  death.  The  new  citadel  was  occupied  by  a  garrison 
strong  enough  to  quell  any  attempt  at  opposition.  All  that 
seemed  left  to  the  little  company  of  faithful  Jews  was  the  oppor- 
tunity to  die  for  their  faith.  This  opportunity  many  of  them  em- 
braced with  fervour.  But  not  all  were  content  with  passive  resist- 

1  Josephus  has  several  references  to  this  temple  and  it  is  impossible  to  ac- 
cept them  all  as  historical.  In  Ant.,  XIII,  3,  he  takes  occasion  to  discredit  it 
by  saying  that  it  was  built  in  a  place  full  of  animals  sacred  to  the  Egyp- 
tians (and  therefore  unclean  to  the  Jews) ;  and  also  that  it  was  built  upon 
the  foundation  of  an  old  Egyptian  temple.  In  one  place  (Jewish  War,  I,  i) 
this  author  ascribes  the  temple  to  Onias  III  (the  one  displaced  by  Jason), 
in  another  to  an  alleged  Onias  IV,  son  of  Onias  III.  I  have  assumed  that 
the  former  was  correct,  as  the  temple  would  most  probably  be  projected 
during  the  time  when  the  Jerusalem  Temple  was  desecrated.  Cf.  Bathgen 
in  Zeitschr.  f.  d.  Alttest.  Wisicnsch.,  VI,  p.  277  ff.;  Willrich,  Juden  und 
Griechen,  p.  126  ff. 

*On  the  site,  cf.  Schurer,  Geschichle  des  Judischen  Volkcs*  III,  p.  97. 
If  the  builder  of  this  temple  were  Onias  III,  the  account  of  the  high-priest's 
murder  in  2  Mace.  4  3*"M  is  incorrect.  In  fact,  the  account  is  full  of  improba- 
bilities, as  is  shown  by  Willrich  and  Bathgen  in  the  discussions  cited  above. 

'Isaiah  19".'  is  undoubtedly  a  late  insertion  in  the  text;  but  I  cannot 
persuade  myself  that  it  was  written  on  purpose  to  justify  the  Onias  temple ; 
^f.  Ctcrse.  Jxtr*d"<-tion  to  the  Book  of  Isaiah,  p.  99  ff. 


448  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

ance.  One  day  the  king's  commissioners  came  to  Modein,  a 
small  place  located  in  the  edge  of  the  hills  just  above  Lydda.1 
The  chief  man  of  the  village  was  Mattathias,  a  priest,  a  man  ad- 
vanced in  years,  and  the  father  of  five  sons,  all  of  whom  had  grown 
to  manhood.  Summoned  by  the  royal  officers  to  take  the  lead 
in  the  sacrifice,  he  refused ;  and  when  one  of  his  neighbours  con- 
sented to  set  the  example,  his  righteous  indignation  broke  out 
and  he  hewed  the  renegade  upon  the  altar  before  which  he  stood. 
The  outburst  was  directed  against  the  unfaithful  Jew,  but  when 
the  overt  act  was  committed  it  would  be  folly  to  pause  or  attempt 
a  compromise.  Mattathias,  therefore,  with  his  sons  and  kinsmen 
fell  upon  the  Syrians  and  cut  them  to  pieces.  Thus  was  the 
standard  of  revolt  definitely  raised. 

As  we  have  had  occasion  to  note  more  than  once  in  the  course 
of  our  history,  Palestine  is  a  country  that  offers  facilities  for 
guerilla  warfare.  The  little  band  of  rebels  under  Mattathias  had 
no  difficulty  in  finding  temporary  safety  in  the  hills  of  Judea. 
Here  they  were  joined  by  fugitives  from  other  towns.  A  band 
of  such  fugitives  was  already  wandering  in  the  region.  These, 
however,  were  so  faithful  to  the  Law  that  when  attacked  by  the 
soldiers  on  the  Sabbath  they  would  not  violate  the  sacred  day  by 
making  resistance.  They  were  therefore  cut  down  to  the  last 
man,  or  rather  to  the  last  child,  for  women  and  children  were 
with  them.  The  report  of  what  had  taken  place  made  Matta- 
thias and  his  band  reflect  upon  the  relation  of  the  Law  to  their 
necessity,  and  they  resolved  that  they  would  not  follow  this  unfor- 
tunate example ;  if  attacked  on  the  Sabbath  they  would  defend 
themselves,  though  they  would  not  take  the  offensive  on  that  day. 
The  band  obtained  some  successes,  which  gave  them  a  reputa- 
n,  and  they  were  strengthened  by  the  Chasidim — "every 
one  who  gave  himself  freely  to  the  Law."  The  party  thus 
named1  is  mentioned  at  a  later  period.  It  was  composed  of 
men  who  made  the  strict  observance  of  the  Law  their  first  con- 
cern, and  who,  so  long  as  this  observance  was  not  made  impracti- 

1  On  the  site,  cf.  SchUrer,  Gesch.  des  Judischen  Votkes*  I,  p.  201  f.;  G. 
A.  Smith,  Historical  Geography*  p.  212.  That  Mattathias  was  a  priest  is 
doubted  by  some. 

1  I  Mace.  2  **;  our  version  gives  the  name  in  the  form  Assideans.  But  the 
Hebrew  form  Chasidim  meets  us  in  the  Psalms ;  cf.  Cheyne,  Origin  and 
Religious  Contents  of  the  Psalter,  p.  56. 


A   NEW   HEROIC  AGE  449 

cable,  were  opposed  to  political  action  of  any  kind.  They  were 
driven  to  fight  in  the  present  exigency  just  because  the  observance 
of  the  Law  was  made  impracticable.  As  soon  as  any  civil  power 
was  found  to  allow  them  the  exercise  of  their  religion  they  ceased 
fighting.  For  the  time  being  they  added  strength  to  the  little 
band  of  rebels. 

Strength  comes  by  action  and  the  outlaws  soon  became 
aggressive.  They  visited  the  towns  which  had  been  forcibly 
Hellenised,  destroyed  the  heathen  altars,  punished  the  renegades, 
compelled  the  circumcision  of  children  whose  parents  had  been 
forced  by  the  Syrians  to  leave  them  uncircumcised.  In  all 
this  their  quarrel  was  primarily  with  the  unfaithful  Jews,  and, 
throughout,  the  enmity  of  the  two  Jewish  parties  for  each  other 
furnished  the  motive  for  the  struggle.  Mattathias,  already  an 
old  man,  did  not  long  live  to  share  the  dangers  of  the  contest. 
As  he  felt  his  end  approaching  he  exhorted  his  followers  to  con- 
tinued zeal  for  the  Law.  He  advised  that  his  son  Simon  be  the 
leader  because  of  his  sound  judgment,  but  that  Judas1  be  the 
military  chieftain  because  of  his  approved  valour.  It  was  evident 
that  for  the  moment  the  heavier  work  fell  upon  Judas. 

The  Syrian  government  had  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the 
troublesome  band  was  more  than  an  ordinary  troop  of  robbers. 
The  officer  in  command  in  the  district  was  one  Apollonius.1 
Gathering  what  force  was  available,  he  marched  out,  intending  to 
put  an  end  to  the  insurrection.  But  Judas  fell  upon  him,  killed 
him  and  a  large  part  of  his  soldiers  and  put  the  rest  to  flight. 
The  booty  of  weapons  was  very  welcome  to  the  ill-armed  Jews. 
Judas's  share  was  the  sword  of  Apollonius,  which  he  carried  from 
this  time  till  his  death. 

The  engagement  was  in  itself  of  no  great  importance.  But  it 
encouraged  the  Jews,  and  they  soon  had  opportunity  to  show 
that  they  were  made  of  no  common  stuff.  Seron,  general  of  the 
army,  called  out  all  the  forces  of  the  province  and  marched  into 
Judea.  A  pitched  battle  was  fought  on  the  ground  where  Israel 

1  Called  the  Maccabee,  from  whom  the  whole  party  receives  the  name 
Maccabeans.  The  origin  and  meaning  of  the  name  are  obscure — the  Ham' 
mer  and  the  Extinguisher  both  have  their  advocates. 

1  Perhaps  the  tax-gatherer  who  had  once  deceived  and  plundered  the 
Jerusalemites,  l  Mace,  i ",  2  Mace.  5  M.  His  headquarters  were  in  Samaria, 
i  Mace.  310. 


OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

had  defeated  its  enemies  in  the  old  days,1  and  history  repeated 
itself.  The  Syrians  are  said  to  have  had  eight  hundred  men 
slain.  Things  were  evidently  getting  serious.  Antiochus  was 
about  marching  to  the  East,  where  also  there  was  a  serious  out- 
break and  so  could  not  meet  the  crisis  in  person,  but  he  left 
orders  with  his  prime  minister,  Lysias,  to  make  thorough  work 
in  Judea. 

The  force  at  Lysias's  disposal  is  said  to  have  been  forty  thou- 
sand men.  They  marched  down  the  coast  under  the  command 
of  three  generals — Ptolemy,  Nicanor,  and  Gorgias.  When  they 
encamped  at  Emmaus  in  the  edge  of  the  hill  country,"  they  were 
joined  by  a  large  number  of  slave  dealers  who  expected  to  buy 
the  captives  which  should  be  taken  by  the  soldiers.  Judas  and 
his  followers  assembled  at  Mizpah,  which  had  served  for  a  refuge 
in  earlier  times  of  distress.*  Here  they  fasted  in  sackcloth  and 
ashes,  wept,  and  implored  the  help  of  Yahweh.  Before  heaven 
they  spread  out  the  copies  of  the  Law  which  the  enemies  had 
defiled  by  painting  idolatrous  symbols  upon  them  ;  they  pointed 
to  the  priestly  garments  which  could  no  longer  be  used,  and  the 
Nazirites  who  could  not  complete  their  vows  while  the  Temple 
was  desecrated.  Then  the  troops  were  reviewed  in  regular  mili- 
tary order,  and  everything  was  got  ready  for  the  battle  which 
was  expected  the  next  day.  Just  then  the  spies  brought  news 
that  one  of  the  generals,  Gorgias,  was  marching  with  a  flying 
column  to  a  night  attack.  Judas  took  a  quick  resolve,  and 
turned  the  tables  on  the  enemy.  With  three  thousand  men  he 
marched  to  the  plain  and  attacked  the  main  army,  unsuspicious 
in  its  tents.  The  surprise  was  complete.  The  encampment  was 
thrown  into  confusion,  and  after  a  brief  resistance  fled.  Judas 
kept  his  men  well  in  hand,  so  as  to  confront  the  detachment 
which  had  marched  into  the  hills.  These  troops  having  searched 
the  hills  without  result,  came  back  weary  and  footsore  only  to 
find  their  own  camp  in  possession  of  the  enemy.  In  their  dis- 
may they  scarcely  made  a  stand  before  the  impetuous  attack  of 
Judas,  and  their  flight  made  his  victory  complete.  An  enor- 
mous booty  was  taken  by  the  Jews,  and  the  Syrian  slain  are 
by  the  Jewish  writer  reckoned  at  three  thousand. 

1  At  Beth-horon,  I  Mace.  3  ";  cf.  Josh.  iolof. 

1  On  the  location,  see  Schiirer,  Geschichte  des  Jiid.   Volkes*  II,  p.  183. 

*  In  the  days  of  Jeremiah,  Jer.  40. 


A   NEW   HEROIC  AGE  45 1 

Thoroughly  alarmed,  Lysias  now  ordered  out  all  the  troops  at 
his  command  and  marched  with  them  in  person.  The  previous 
attempts  had  shown  that  the  approach  from  the  maritime  plain 
to  Judea  gave  the  Jews  an  advantage,  because  the  passes  were 
easily  defended  by  an  inferior  force.  This  time,  therefore,  a 
different  route  was  chosen.  The  southern  part  of  the  hill  coun- 
try— the  traditional  territory  of  Judah — was  now  in  the  hands  of 
the  Edomites.  They  could  be  depended  upon  to  assist  the  king's 
army  against  their  hereditary  enemies,  the  Jews.  Lysias  there- 
fore marched  down  the  plain  till  he  reached  this  Edomite  terri- 
tory. Here  he  ascended  the  hills  and  turned  northward  toward 
Jerusalem.  Advancing  beyond  Hebron  the  army  camped  at 
Beth-zur,  an  old  stronghold  of  Judah.1  Here  Judas,  whose  forces 
had  grown  to  ten  thousand  men,  attacked  them  and  inflicted 
such  losses  that  Lysias  thought  it  imprudent  to  continue  the 
campaign.  He  therefore  retired  to  Antioch  to  enlist  more  mer- 
cenaries, leaving  Judas  temporarily  in  possession  of  the  district. 
In  the  three  years  which  had  elapsed  since  the  profanation  of  the 
Temple  the  Jews  had  been  uniformly  successful,  and  nothing  was 
now  in  the  way  of  their  asserting  their  title  to  Jerusalem.  The 
citadel  was  indeed  too  strong  for  them  to  storm  ;  but  they  were 
able  to  hold  it  in  check,  and  to  take  possession  of  city  and 
Temple. 

We  must  now  pause  a  moment  in  the  narrative,  to  consider  an 
interesting  literary  monument  of  just  this  period.  This  is  the 
book  of  Daniel,  which  we  see  at  once  to  be  different  in  form 
from  the  prophetical  books  with  which  (in  our  version  though 
not  in  the  Hebrew)  it  is  classed.  It  is,  in  fact,  one  of  the  books 
which  we  call  apocalypses,  of  which  we  have  one  in  each  part  of 
our  Bible.  We  know  also  of  others  which  have  not  been  re- 
ceived into  the  Canon  of  Scripture.  In  these  books  the  author 
writes  under  the  name  of  some  hero  of  antiquity.  He  transports 
himself  in  imagination  to  the  alleged  writer's  time,  and  makes 
him  see  in  vision  that  which  is  to  come  to  pass.  These  visions 
simply  clothe  history  in  the  form  of  prediction  till  they  reach 
the  time  of  the  real  author.  They  then  change  their  tone  and 

1  2  Chron.  IIT,  where,  however,  the  Chronicler  transfers  the  state  of 
things  in  his  own  day  to  the  time  of  Rehoboam.  The  account  in  I  Macca- 
bees assumes  that  the  territory  sooth  of  Beth-zur  was  Edomite  (Idumean> 
I  Mace-  4  ". 


452  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

set  forth  the  expectation  of  divine  interference  in  the  history  of 
the  world — for  these  compositions  look  for  the  consummation  of 
all  things  in  the  immediate  future. 

The  best  proof  of  this  characterisation  is  the  example  given  by 
the  book  of  Daniel  itself.  The  key  to  the  book  is  the  detailed 
description  which  fills  its  last  three  chapters.  Here  we  have  a 
vision  in  which  Daniel  receives  from  an  angel  an  account  of  what 
is  to  come  to  pass.  The  starting-point  is  the  third  year  of  Cyrus, 
which  means  his  third  year  as  King  of  Babylon.1  The  author 
announces  that  after  Cyrus  three  kings  of  Persia  shall  arise,  after 
which  shall  come  a  mighty  king — evidently  Alexander  the  Great. 
The  kingdom,  however,  will  not  pass  to  his  heirs  but  will  be 
divided  into  four.  The  fortunes  of  two  of  these  divisions  (Syria 
and  Egypt)  are  then  taken  up.  The  author  knows  of  the  al- 
liance cemented  by  the  marriage  of  Berenice,  daughter  of  Ptolemy 
Philadelphia,  to  Antiochus  Theos.  He  also  knows  of  the  ill-suc- 
cess which  followed  this  marriage  and  of  the  invasion  of  Syria  by 
the  next  Ptolemy.  Ten  verses  are  given  to  the  reign  of  Antiochus 
the  Great,  whose  career  made  a  deep  impression  in  the  East.1 
His  successor,  Seleucus  Philopator,  is  dismissed  with  a  single  verse 
and  then  Antiochus  Epiphanes  comes  into  view.  This  monarch's 
seizure  of  the  throne  is  alluded  to  and  his  two  campaigns  against 
Egypt  are  described.  He  is  said  to  be  checked  by  ships  of  Chit- 
tim,  by  which  the  Romans  are  intended.  The  author  then  goes 
on  : 

"  And  he  shall  be  angry  against  the  holy  covenant  and 
shall  do  his  will  and  shall  have  regard  to  those  who  for- 
sake the  holy  covenant.  And  forces  sent  by  him  shall  pre- 
vail and  shall  defile  the  sanctuary,  and  they  shall  abolish  the 
daily  sacrifice  and  set  up  the  Desolating  Abomination.  And 
he  will  seduce  by  flattery  those  who  bring  guilt  upon  the  cov- 
enant people  ;  but  a  company  that  know  their  God  shall  be 
strong  and  shall  act ;  and  the  instructors  of  the  people  shall 
give  understanding  to  many ;  and  they  shall  fall  by  sword 
and  by  fire,  by  captivity  and  by  plunder  for  some  days.  And 

1  Dan.  10 '.  The  unfortunate  division  into  chapters  (and  paragraphs  in 
the  Hebrew)  makes  1 1  *  give  another  date.  But  the  text  is  there  corrupt ; 
cf.  Sevan's  commentary  (1892). 

1  Dan.  1 1 10~19.  In  v.  "  we  have  an  indication  that  in  the  time  of  Antiochus 
the  Great  a  party  in  Jerusalem  attempted  to  set  up  the  Messianic  kingdom 
by  force  of  arms. 


A  NEW   HEROIC  AGE  455 

when  these  are  falling  they  shall  be  helped  a  little ;  and  ma&» 
shall  attach  themselves  to  them  treacherously.  And  some  of 
the  instructors  shall  fall,  in  order  to  test  them  and  to  cleanse 
them  and  to  make  them  white  until  the  time  of  the  end."  * 

This  passage  reveals  to  us  the  inner  thought  of  the  Chasidim  in 
the  midst  of  the  Maccabean  movement.  To  them  the  desecration 
of  the  Temple  was  the  first  act  in  the  great  drama  of  the  end. 
The  birth-pangs  of  the  Messianic  age  had  already  set  in.  But  the 
main  scenes  of  the  drama  were  not  to  be  displays  of  human 
power.  The  Maccabean  uprising  was  regarded  as  only  a  trifling 
help ;  those  who  took  part  in  it  did  not  all  belong  to  the  strictest 
party  and  were  counted  as  hypocrites.  The  believer's  consola- 
tion was  the  thought  that  the  death  of  the  scribes  was  only  a 
part  of  the  purifying  work  which  must  go  on  a  little  longer. 

What  the  faithful  were  looking  for  was  a  signal  and  direct  in- 
tervention of  God  Himself.  This  seemed  called  for  by  the  un- 
paralleled wickedness  of  Antiochus.  With  a  levity  that  the 
Hebrew  mind  could  not  comprehend,  this  king  had  abandoned 
the  household  god  of  the  Seleucids  and  devoted  himself  to  an- 
other and  foreign  divinity — nay,  he  even  claimed  divine  honours 
for  himself.  *  This  would  seem  to  fill  the  cup  of  his  iniquities  up 
to  the  brim. 

On  this  ground  we  have  the  prediction  which  follows.  In 
the  immediate  future  the  new  era  will  dawn.  Antiochus  is  to 
make  one  more  invasion  of  Egypt  and  this  country  will  come 
completely  into  his  power.  He  will  then  return  to  Palestine 
and  camp  "  between  the  sea  and  the  mountains  of  holy  beauty  " 
— that  is,  in  the  Philistine  plain,  where  his  armies  had  so  often 
been  seen.  But  here  he  will  meet  complete  destruction. 

The  conflict  of  the  nations  will  be  accompanied  by  a  conflict 
between  the  heavenly  powers.  Michael,  the  patron  angel  of 
Israel,  will  defend  the  cause  of  truth.  Great  trouble  may  be 
expected  to  accompany  these  celestial  conflicts,  but  at  the  end 
the  true  Israel — every  one  found  written  in  the  book  of  the 
divine  approval — will  be  delivered.  Then  will  come  a  resur- 

»Dan.  it**. 

1  This  seems  to  be  the  plain  meaning  of  n  * — "  he  shall  magnify  himself 
above  every  god  "  Nestle  points  out  that  in  the  coins  of  Antiochus,  Apollo 
(up  to  that  time  the  patron  deity  of  the  Seleucids)  gives  place  to  Zeus 
Olympics. 


454  OLE   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

rection  of  those  who  sleep ;  the  martyrs  for  the  truth  who  were 
not  permitted  to  see  the  reward  of  their  steadfastness  will  be 
raised  to  an  eternal  life.  Those  sinners  and  oppressors  who  were 
not  punished  for  their  misdeeds  will  be  raised,  in  order  to  be  con- 
demned to  a  life  of  shame  and  misery.  The  teachers  of  the  Law 
will  then  shine  like  the  brightness  of  the  firmament.  All  this 
will  take  place  three  years  and  a  half  after  the  desecration  of 
the  Temple  by  the  foreign  altar — therefore  in  the  immediate 
future  of  the  writer.1 

I  have  given  this  vision  at  some  length  because  it  furnishes 
the  key  to  the  rest  of  the  book.  For  the  other  visions  present 
us  with  the  same  theory  of  history.  The  succession  of  worldly 
monarchies,  whether  represented  by  the  image  seen  by  Nebuchad- 
rezzar, or  by  the  four  beasts,  or  by  only  the  ram  and  he-goat, 
culminates  in  the  Greek  empire,  of  which  Antiochus  is  the 
last  and  most  ungodly  representative.  He  is  the  little  horn 
which  becomes  great,  exalts  itself  against  the  host  of  heaven, 
and  even  attacks  the  Most  High.2  But  in  each  case  we  are 
shown  that  when  at  the  height  of  his  power  he  is  to  be  over- 
thrown— "without  hands  shall  he  be  broken" — that  is,  by 
direct  divine  intervention.  More  dramatically  his  fate  is  shown 
in  another  passage  where  the  judgment-seat  is  occupied  by  the 
Ancient  of  Days,  the  books  are  brought  and  the  assizes  are 
held.*  For  his  blasphemies  the  accused  is  found  guilty,  his 
empire  is  destroyed,  and  the  supremacy  is  given  to  the  people  of 
the  Most  High. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  how  the  author  came  to  fix  upon  three 
years  and  a  half  as  the  duration  of  the  persecution.  His  whole 
calculation  is  set  before  us  by  himself.  The  books  of  the 
prophets  were  to  him  the  repositories  of  heavenly  secrets.  In 
them  he  read  that  the  captivity  was  to  last  seventy  years.  But 
he  was  only  too  certain  that  this  prediction  had  not  been  liter- 
ally fulfilled.  Israel  was  still  scattered  among  the  nations;  the 

1  The  period  of  three  years  and  a  half  seems  clearly  defined  in  I2T.  The 
later  data  (1290  and  1335  days,  12  "  f-)  are  additions  to  the  text.  The  1150 
days  (2300  evenings  and  mornings)  of  8  "  indicate  that  the  earlier  expecta- 
tion differed  somewhat  from  the  later. 

1  Dan.  8  u.  Blasphemies  against  the  God  of  Heaven  are  intended  ;  cf. 
Moore  in  the  Journal  of  Biblical  Literature,  XV  (1896),  p.  193  ff. 

1  Ibid. ,  7  *-w.  That  the  one  like  a  man  in  this  passage  does  not  mean  au 
individual  Messiah  seems  certain. 


A  NEW   HEROIC  AGE  455 

promised  glory  of  Jerusalem  had  not  appeared,  but  something 
far  different.  By  a  course  of  reasoning  which  is  not  difficult 
for  us  to  follow,  he  multiplied  the  original  seventy  by  seven — 
perhaps  on  the  basis  of  what  he  supposed  to  be  indications  of 
Scripture.1  The  seventy  weeks  of  years  thus  given  are  divided 
into  three  periods.  First  comes  a  week  of  weeks,  or  jubilee 
period  of  forty-nine  years,  lasting  from  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  to 
the  conquest  of  Babylon  by  Cyrus,  or,  more  probably,  to  the 
installation  of  Joshua  as  high-priest.  From  this  point  the  second 
main  period  of  sixty-two  weeks  extends  to  what  we  may  call  the 
beginning  of  the  end.  The  end  itself  covers  the  last  seven  years, 
which  begin  with  the  deposition  of  Onias.  This  period  is  di- 
vided into  two  halves — the  first  from  the  deposition  of  Onias, 
down  to  the  desecration  of  the  Temple  by  the  heathen  altar. 
The  second  half  is  the  period  of  intensest  persecution;  when  it 
has  expired  the  promises  are  to  be  fulfilled.1 

The  unavoidable  conclusion  is  that  the  author  wrote  during 
this  period  of  intensest  persecution  and  not  long  before  the  re- 
dedication  of  the  Temple.  We  are  now  able  to  understand  the 
stories  of  the  first  half  of  the  book.  That  these  stories  have  some 
historical  or  traditional  basis  is  probable.  But  as  they  now  stand 
they  have  been  rewritten  with  the  purpose  of  stimulating  faith  and 
steadfastness  among  those  who  were  enduring  the  Antiochean 
persecution.  Nebuchadrezzar  or  Belshazzar  or  Darius,  each  of 
these  kings  as  he  appears  in  the  book,  is  simply  the  projection 
of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  into  an  earlier  time.  Daniel  in  the 
king's  palace  refusing  to  eat  the  king's  dainties  because  they  are 
unclean  is  an  example  of  what  every  Jew  should  do  when  tempted 
by  threat  or  invitation  to  eat  meat  sacrificed  to  idols.  The  Ne- 
buchadrezzar of  the  story  erected  a  golden  idol*  to  which  all  people 
must  render  worship.  The  three  young  Jews  gave  a  fine  example 
of  fidelity  to  conscience  when  they  refused.  So  did  Daniel  when 

1  Bevan  points  to  Lev.  26  l8-*1'  where  Israel  is  threatened  with  a  seven- 
fold punishment,  and  to  v.  **  f-»  where  it  is  said  the  land  shall  keep  her  sab- 
baths. Combining  these,  the  author  supposed  seventy  sabbatical  years  (or 
periods)  to  be  intended.  See  also  2  Chron.  36*'. 

*  It  is  not  surprising  that  the  author's  chronology  is  far  from  exact ;  see 
Schflrer,  Gestk.  des  Jiid.  Volkes,  '  III.,  p.  189  f. 

*So  did  Antiochus,  as  is  pointed  out  by  Nestle,  Marginalien,  p.  35  f.  We 
have  no  evidence  that  the  real  Nebuchadrezzar  ever  exercised  compulsion  in 
the  matter  of  religion. 


456  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

Darius  forbade  the  exercise  of  his  religion.  The  lesson  of  the  stories 
is  steadfastness  under  persecution. 

And  another  lesson  of  these  stories  is  the  mutability  of  hu- 
man affairs.  The  mightiest  monarchs  and  the  greatest  empires 
are  in  the  hands  of  God.  He  is  able  to  overthrow  them  and  to 
punish  their  iniquities.  In  one  chapter  we  have  Nebuchadrez- 
zar, the  ruler  of  the  world,  smitten  with  a  brutish  madness,  and 
on  his  recovery  acknowledging  the  unique  power  of  the  God  of 
Heaven.1  In  another,  Belshazzar  when  desecrating  the  sacred 
vessels  by  his  orgies  is  suddenly  hurled  to  destruction.  The 
great  dream  which  Daniel  alone  is  able  to  expound  shows  how 
the  kingdoms  have  succeeded  one  to  the  other,  to  give  place  at 
last  to  the  rule  of  the  people  of  the  Most  High.  And  in  all  this 
it  is  not  human  might  or  human  wisdom  that  works.  It  is 
God  who  by  His  direct  interposition  pulls  down  one  and  sets  up 
another,  and  compels  the  heathen  rulers  to  acknowledge  His 
power.  This  is  the  author's  expectation  for  the  future — not  the 
courage  of  the  Maccabees  nor  the  revolt  of  the  whole  people  will 
effect  any  substantial  improvement.  Until  God  intervenes,  en- 
durance is  the  best  thing  for  the  believer. 

This  programme  of  the  Chasidim  shows  more  distinctly  than 
anything  else  the  division  in  feeling  among  the  people.  The 
Maccabean  party  were  ready  to  fight ;  the  Chasidim  would  fight 
under  strong  provocation,  but  they  had  little  confidence  in  the 
arm  of  flesh.  One  question  must  have  given  them  trouble :  Why 
had  not  God  intervened  before  this?  If  God  is  really  the  unique 
and  all-powerful  ruler  of  the  universe  it  is  strange  that  He  should 
allow  such  a  state  of  things  as  we  see  in  the  universe  about  us — 
idolatry,  crime,  oppression.  The  problem  is  the  old  one  con- 
sidered by  the  book  of  Job  and  also  by  Ecclesiastes.  The  author 
of  Job  thought  it  insoluble.  All  that  he  affirms  is  that  the  Ruler 
of  the  universe  has  many  great  and  varied  interests  in  His  charge, 
and  that  we  can  trust  Him  to  manage  them  wisely,  though  He  does 
not  do  it  in  the  interest  of  what  we  call  justice.  The  author  of 
Ecclesiastes  also  finds  the  problem  insoluble.  In  his  view  the 

1  Daniel,  4.  The  vagaries  of  Epiphanes  probably  gave  rise  to  a  rumour  of 
his  insanity.  The  description  of  the  madness  seems  to  go  back  to  the 
strange  Babylonian  figure  of  Ea-bani.  See  the  myth  translated  by  Jensen 
in  the  Keilinschr.  Bibliothek,  VI,  p.  12  (Pinches,  in  the  Proceedings  of  tht 
Society  of  Bib,  Arch.,  gives  the  name  in  the  form  Ea-du). 


A  NEW   HEROIC   AGE  457 

divine  government  makes  no  difference  between  man  and  ani- 
mals. The  piety  of  the  Chasidim  forbade  them  to  adopt  such 
an  answer.  Their  solution  is  made  known  by  some  indications 
in  the  book  of  Daniel.  Briefly,  we  may  say  that  the  blame  for 
the  present  condition  of  things  is  laid  upon  the  angels. 

We  saw  in  the  time  of  the  rebuilding  of  the  Temple  how  the 
angels  came  into  view  as  the  organs  of  revelation  and  also  as  ad- 
ministrators of  the  divine  government.  Zechariah  and  his  con- 
temporaries conceived  the  universe  to  be  organised  on  the  plan 
of  the  Persian  monarchy.  The  various  provinces  were  under  the 
government  of  angelic  satraps,  who  had  a  considerable  measure 
of  autonomy.  Angels  were  not  unknown  to  the  earlier  Hebra- 
ism. The  angel  of  Yahweh  was  the  bearer  of  messages  to  the 
heroes  of  old.1  But  he  had  only  a  temporary  commission  and 
was  reabsorbed  in  the  divine  essence  or  unmasked  himself  as 
Yahweh  in  person.  But  when  the  greatness  of  the  world  became 
better  known,  and  when  the  thought  of  the  people  elevated  Yah- 
weh above  all  other  beings,  then  His  train  of  attendants  became 
more  important.  In  the  large  and  loosely  conglomerated  king- 
dom of  Syria  it  was  easy  for  the  governor  of  a  province  to  disre- 
gard or  evade  commands  of  the  supreme  monarch.  It  was  easy 
to  lay  upon  these  subordinates  the  blame  for  injustice  and  oppres- 
sion. The  viceroys  were  moved  by  their  own  desires  or  pas- 
sions ;  they  might  even  go  so  far  as  to  make  war  upon  each  other 
in  disregard  of  the  king's  peace. 

It  was  not  difficult  to  transfer  this  state  of  things  to  the  world 
at  large.  The  angelic  viceroys  might  have  selfish  ends  and  pur- 
sue them  for  a  time  in  disregard  of  the  Sovereign's  wishes.  The 
book  of  Daniel  assumes  that  this  is  the  case.  Gabriel  is  com- 
missioned to  bring  a  revelation  to  Daniel.  The  angel  who  pre- 
sides over  the  destinies  of  Persia  does  not  wish  to  have  Daniel 
favoured  in  this  way  and  forcibly  restrains  him.  Michael,  the 
viceroy  of  the  Jewish  people,  comes  to  Gabriel's  help  so  that  he 
is  able  to  deliver  his  message  (though  the  delay  amounts  to 
three  weeks),  and  after  executing  the  commission  he  expects  to 
encounter  again  the  angel  of  Persia  and  the  angel  of  Greece. 

It  is  plain  that  if  these  angel  viceroys  are  so  bold  as  to  oppose 
Gabriel  on  an  errand  to  which  he  is  directly  commanded  by 

1The  instances  of  Gideon  and  Manoah  (Judg.  6  u,  13 J)  will  occur  to 
everyone. 


OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

God,  they  will  not  scruple  to  encourage  their  human  clients  to 
all  sorts  of  violence  against  Israel.  On  the  theory  that  they  do 
so  encourage  them,  the  present  condition  of  the  world  can  be 
explained — though  at  the  expense  of  the  divine  efficiency.  The 
believer  might  be  supposed  to  find  small  comfort  in  the  thought 
that  the  heavenly  rule  is  at  loose  ends  like  the  Seleucid  adminis- 
tration. But  there  is  always  in  reserve  the  thought  that  this  is 
only  a  temporary  arrangement.  The  patience  of  Yahweh  bears 
with  misrule  for  the  present  age.  Just  ahead  is  another  period 
of  the  world's  history — the  heavenly  kingdom  is  already  prepared 
in  heaven.1  Yahweh  will  shortly  set  it  up  upon  the  earth,  will 
punish  the  unruly  satraps,  and  will  give  His  own  people  power 
over  their  enemies.  It  is  plain  that  we  have  here  not  only  en- 
couragement for  the  time  of  persecution  but  the  germ  of  doctrines 
which  were  more  fully  developed  a  little  later.* 

Because  of  the  encouragement  which  it  gave  in  the  time  of 
persecution,  and  perhaps  because  a  partial  fulfilment  of  its  hopes 
seemed  to  come  soon  after  its  publication,  the  book  of  Daniel  at- 
tained currency  and  credit  at  once.  Because  of  the  theory  of  his- 
tory which  it  formulates,  it  has  been  one  of  the  most  influential 
books  ever  written.  In  every  time  of  persecution  its  assertion  that 
the  world  power  now  triumphant  must  soon  give  way  to  a  better 
state  of  things,  has  appealed  to  the  sufferers.  Its  expectation  that 
the  kingdom  of  God  will  shortly  appear,  has  been  renewed  at 
every  such  period.  This  we  see  from  Enoch  and  the  New  Testa- 
ment Apocalypse,  as  well  as  from  numerous  other  writings  which 
have  survived  in  whole  or  in  part  to  our  own  time.  The  book  of 
Daniel,  moreover,  gave  form  to  the  dualistic  theory  which  has  so 
widely  prevailed  in  the  Synagogue,  as  in  the  Church.  Alexan- 

1  The  stone  cut  out  without  hands  (Dan.  2  M)  prefigures  the  heavenly  city 
of  later  apocalypses. 

1  How  far  Persian  religion  has  influenced  Jewish  writers  in  this  period  is 
not  yet  clearly  made  out.  It  is  plain  that  a  principle  of  evil  (like  Ahriman) 
is  not  yet  fully  recognised.  But  these  rebellious  angel-satraps  fall  little 
short  of  the  rebel  angels  of  Enoch  and  of  the  New  Testament.  The  reader 
may  consult  Stave,  Ueber  den  Einfluss  des  Parsismus  auf  das  Judentum 
(1898). 

I  have  treated  the  book  of  Daniel  as  a  unit.  Even  if  composite,  we  can- 
not date  its  elements  very  far  apart  in  point  of  time.  Some  evidences  of 
compilation  are  pointed  out  by  Barton,  Journal  of  Bib.  Lit.,  XVII,  pp 


A  NEW   HEROIC  AGE  459 

der's  career  gave  men  the  thought  of  a  universal  empire.  But 
such  an  empire  under  a  heathen  ruler  like  Antiochus  Epiphanel 
is  the  negation  of  all  pious  ideals.  It  is  the  kingdom  of  Satan. 
Hence  we  find  the  sharp  opposition  between  the  world  and  the 
Church,  between  the  present  age  and  the  coming  age,  which 
passed  from  Judaism  into  Christian  theology,  and  which  received 
its  classical  expression  in  Augustine's  treatise  on  the  City  of  God. 
Nebuchadrezzar,  or  Alexander,  or  Antiochus,  or  Nero  became 
in  this  theory  the  Antichrist,  who  in  the  last  great  struggle  which 
is  to  usher  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  will  be  vanquished.1  But 
we  must  now  return  to  the  Maccabean  era. 

The  pious  were  willing  to  meet  death  at  the  hands  of  their 
persecutors  in  the  hope  that  the  kingdom  of  God  was  shortly  to 
appear.  The  Maccabeans  chose  to  serve  God  by  active  resist- 
ance to  wrong — "  with  the  high  praises  of  God  in  their  mouth, 
but  a  two-edged  sword  in  their  hand."  And  Yahweh  certainly 
seemed  to  smile  upon  them.  Success  beyond  human  expecta- 
tion had  crowned  their  arms.  The  holy  city  was  again  theirs 
and  they  could  restore  their  sanctuary  to  its  legitimate  uses. 
The  restoration  was  taken  in  hand  with  scrupulous  care.  The 
Temple  area  was  cleansed  by  the  removal  of  everything  that 
could  suggest  the  intruded  heathenism.  A  perplexity  was  en- 
countered in  dealing  with  the  old  altar  of  burnt-offering.  Orig- 
inally consecrated  to  Yahweh,  it  had  been  defiled  by  the  erection 
of  the  altar  of  Zeus  upon  it.  Did  the  old  consecration  persist 
even  through  the  profanation?  To  be  on  the  safe  side,  the 
workmen  (priests  alone  were  allowed  to  take  part  in  the  work) 
tore  the  altar  down,  but  instead  of  casting  out  the  stones  they 
carefully  laid  them  up  on  the  Temple  mount  until  a  prophet 
should  arise  to  tell  what  should  be  done  with  them.1  The  sen- 
tence is  instructive.  It  shows  the  consciousness  that  prophetic 
inspiration  was  no  longer  granted.  It  shows  also  that  questions  of 
what  was  sacred  and  what  profane  had  assumed  a  prominent  place 
in  people's  thoughts. 

1  The  influence  of  Alexander's  career  on  subsequent  ages  is  very  marked, 
but  cannot  be  further  traced  here.  A  considerable  literature  is  in  existence 
on  the  subject,  the  latest  discussion  being  Kampers.  Alexander  der  Grosse 
vnd  die  Idee  des  Weltimperiumi  (1901). 

1  Mace.  4  u.  The  author  of  Chronicles  seems  to  have  had  no  doubt  chat 
the  vessels  sent  back  by  Cyrus  were  fit  for  sacred  use. 


460  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

All  things  having  been  set  in  order,  the  daily  burnt-offering 
was  resumed  on  the  morning  of  the  twenty-fifth  day  of  the  ninth 
month,  165  B.C.  It  was  just  three  years  after  the  beginning  of 
the  desecration.  So  important  an  event  should  be  marked  in 
some  special  way,  and  the  popular  assembly  agreed  that  it  should 
be  commemorated  yearly  by  a  festival — the  Feast  of  Dedication,1 
which  has  been  observed  by  the  Jews  to  the  present  time. 

Success  did  not  blind  Judas  to  the  difficulties  of  the  situation. 
The  citadel  of  Jerusalem  was  still  in  the  hand  of  the  enemy. 
As  it  was  provisioned  for  a  long  time,  and  as  Judas  had  no  means 
of  reducing  fortifications,  the  most  that  could  be  done  was  to  hold 
the  garrison  in  check  and  to  fortify  the  Temple  as  a  balancing 
stronghold.  Even  then  the  hostile  force  constantly  present  was 
a  reminder  of  Antiochus's  claims  and  of  the  limitations  of  the 
Jews.  Beth-zur,  the  frontier  town  toward  Idumea,  was  strength- 
ened, now  that  recent  events  had  shown  its  importance.  The 
Jews  were,  in  fact,  but  a  handful  of  people  in  the  midst  of  a  large 
hostile  population.  Hereditary  enemies  were  the  Idumeans  on 
the  south  and  the  Samaritans  on  the  north.  In  the  Hellenised 
cities  the  Jews  were  looked  upon  with  dislike.  Frequent  popu- 
lar outbreaks  against  them  attest  this.  And  the  conduct  of  the 
Jews  when  in  power  was  not  calculated  to  disarm  hatred.  It  is 
not  surprising,  therefore,  that  from  various  quarters  reports  of 
persecution  began  to  come  to  Jerusalem. 

Judas  was  not  the  man  to  leave  his  kinsmen  to  the  tender 
mercies  of  the  wicked.  War  was  carried  first  against  the  Idume- 
ans, who  were  trespassers  on  the  ancient  territory  of  Judah. 
Their  army  suffered  a  severe  defeat,  one  of  their  strongholds  was 
taken,  the  tower  was  destroyed,  and  the  garrison  was  exter- 
minated.* A  campaign  against  the  Ammonites  was  equally  suc- 
cessful. Then  came  a  cry  for  help  from  Gilead,  where  the  Jews 
were  set  upon  by  the  Gentiles  and  obliged  to  take  refuge  in 
a  fortress  called  Dathema.  In  Galilee,  also,  the  Jews  were  hard 
pressed  by  bands  from  Ptolemais,  Tyre,  and  Sidon,  cities  of 

1  The  book  called  2  Maccabees  is  a  pamphlet  intended  to  commend  the 
observance  of  this  feast  and  of  Nicanor's  Day  to  the  Jews  of  Alexandria. 

1  I  Mace.  5  *"*.  The  defeat  was  inflicted  at  Akrabattene,  doubtless  the 
Pass  of  Akrabbim  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  fortress  whose  inhabitants 
were  devoted  after  the  Old  Testament  method  is  called  Baian.  The  place 
is  not  yet  identified,  and  it  is  not  yet  certain  even  that  it  was  in  Idumea. 


A   NEW   HEROIC   AGE  461 

strong  Greek  feeling.  With  the  consent  of  the  popular  assem- 
bly at  Jerusalem,  Judas  marched  with  eight  thousand  men  to 
Gilead,  while  his  brother  Simon  with  three  thousand  went  into 
Galilee.  Both  expeditions  were  successful.  But  instead  of  at- 
tempting to  hold  these  regions,  the  two  generals  brought  back 
with  them  the  Jews  who  had  been  under  persecution  and  settled 
them  in  Judea.  For  the  present,  the  idea  of  setting  up  an  ex- 
tended kingdom  must  remain  in  abeyance. 

That  these  successes  were  due  in  large  measure  to  the  courage 
and  capacity  of  the  leaders  was  soon  manifest.  While  Judas  was 
busy  in  Gilead  and  Simon  in  Galilee,  the  command  in  Judea  de- 
volved upon  Joseph  and  Azarias,  who  had  received  strict  orders 
to  remain  on  the  defensive.  But  ambitious  of  glory,  these  men 
disobeyed  orders  and  marched  against  Jamnia  in  the  Philistine 
territory.  Gorgias  was  here  in  command,  the  same  who  had 
once  been  defeated  by  Judas.  He  now  had  his  revenge,  the 
Jews  being  defeated  and  leaving  two  thousand  dead  upon  the 
field.  The  severe  lesson  was  not  lost  upon  the  Jews,  and  they 
trusted  the  Maccabean  brothers  to  lead  them  from  this  time  on. 
Under  their  leadership  further  successes  were  obtained  against 
Idumea  and  Philistia.  The  fortifications  of  Hebron  were  razed; 
Maresha l  and  Ashdod  were  captured.  In  the  latter  city,  and 
probably  in  the  others,  the  altars  were  destroyed  and  the  statues 
of  the  gods  were  burned.  Tolerance  is  not  begotten  of  intoler- 
ance. 

These  various  successes  were  obtained  when  the  resources  of 
the  kingdom  were  employed  elsewhere.  Antiochus  had  gone  to 
the  far  East  and  there  had  met  his  death.*  He  left  a  young  son 
whom  he  commended  to  one  of  his  generals  named  Philip.  But 
Lysias,  who  was  administrator  at  Antioch,  without  waiting  for 
Philip's  return,  proclaimed  the  young  Antiochus  king  and  pre- 
pared to  maintain  himself  as  regent.  Scarcely  was  the  corona- 

1  I  Mace.  5  v>~n.  On  the  reading  Maresha,  see  Schttrer,  Geschichte  des 
Jud.  Volkes?  I.,  p.  212,  SchUrer's  sketch  of  the  Maccabean  uprising  is  an 
acknowledged  masterpiece. 

*  It  was  natural  for  the  Jewish  writer  (i  Mace.  6  *-")  to  attribute  his  death 
to  the  news  he  received  of  the  recovery  of  the  Temple  by  the  Jews.  2 
Mace.,  as  is  its  wont,  paints  the  end  of  the  blasphemer  in  edifying  colours; 
and  Josephus  is  much  outraged  because  Apion  asserts  that  the  king  was 
smitten,  not  for  sacrilege  against  Jerusalem,  but  for  plundering  a  heathen 
temple. 


462  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

tion  over  when  an  urgent  message  came  from  the  Syrian  garrison 
at  Jerusalem :  Judas  was  actively  besieging  the  citadel,  and 
there  was  fear  that  it  could  not  long  hold  out. 

The  young  king  and  his  guardian  responded  quickly  to  the 
insult  put  upon  them  by  the  Jewish  rebels,  and  resolved  to  crush 
the  revolt  by  one  decisive  blow.  An  immense  army  was  gath- 
ered, strong  in  cavalry,  in  which  the  Jews  were  notably  deficient, 
and  including  thirty-two  elephants.  This  arm  of  the  service  had 
been  employed  since  the  time  of  Alexander,  but  had  not  yet  been 
used  against  the  Jews.  The  invasion,  like  the  preceding  one, 
took  place  from  the  south.  Beth-zur  was  besieged  and  Judas 
marched  to  its  relief  from  Jerusalem.  The  armies  met  at  Beth 
Zacharias,  not  far  north  of  Beth-zur.  The  most  desperate  valour 
on  the  part  of  the  Jews  was  unavailing.  Eleazar,  one  of  the 
Maccabean  brothers,  met  his  death  in  stabbing  the  elephant 
which  he  supposed  to  carry  the  young  king.  But  the  odds  were 
too  great.  The  defeat  was  decisive;  active  opposition  in  the 
field  could  no  longer  be  thought  of.  The  garrison  of  Beth-zur 
was  obliged  to  surrender  ;  the  Syrian  army  marched  to  Jerusalem, 
and  relieved  the  citadel.  Judas  was  obliged  to  retire  to  the 
Temple,  where  he  was  in  turn  besieged.  The  garrison  was  in 
extremity  owing  to  the  lack  of  provisions,1  when  a  new  turn  was 
given  to  affairs  by  events  at  Antioch. 

The  above-named  Philip,  appointed  by  Antiochus  guardian  of 
his  son  and  administrator  of  the  kingdom,  was  now  approaching 
Antioch  with  the  army  of  the  East,  and  was  prepared  to  claim 
his  office.  The  anxiety  of  Lysias  to  retain  his  regency  forced 
him  to  march  against  Philip  at  once.  He  therefore  hastily  made 
peace  with  the  garrison  of  the  Temple,  promising  the  Jews  free- 
dom to  observe  their  own  religious  customs.  When  he  got  pos- 
session of  the  place  he  thought  it  too  strong,  and  therefore  broke 
down  the  exterior  walls.  He  did  not  otherwise  interfere  with 
the  sacred  building. 

The  concession  which  allowed  the  Jews  to  observe  their  own 
religious  customs  was  one  which  if  made  earlier  in  the  conflict 
would  have  secured  complete  submission  to  the  central  authority. 

1  It  was  the  Sabbatical  year,  conscientious  observance  of  which  often 
brought  the  Jews  into  difficulty.  The  mention  of  this  year  as  the  Sabbatical 
year  enables  us  to  date  the  siege  in  163  B.C.  ;  see  Schiirer,  Gesekichte  des 
Tiid.  Volkes*,  I,  p.  214. 


A  NEW   HEROIC   AGE  463 

But  after  the  Jews  had  tasted  the  sweets  of  liberty  they  were  not 
so  easily  satisfied.  The  straitest  sect  indeed  (the  Chasidim)  now 
detached  themselves  from  the  revolution.  They  were  content  U 
live  under  any  masters  so  long  as  they  were  allowed  to  observe 
their  Law.  But  the  Maccabeans  and  those  most  strongly  attached 
to  them  distrusted  the  promises  made  by  the  young  king.  They 
knew  also  that  the  Hellenising  Jews  had  heavy  scores  to  pay  off. 
Whether,  in  addition,  Judas  and  his  followers  had  large  national 
aspirations  cannot  be  decided  with  confidence.  It  would  not  be 
strange  if  they  regarded  their  earlier  successes  as  the  pledge  of 
something  better  yet  to  come.  In  view  of  all  the  circumstances 
Judas  refused  to  be  lulled  into  a  false  security  and  remained  on 
guard.  Events  soon  justified  his  precautions. 

The  Syrian  throne  had  been  designed  by  Seleucus  IV  (Philo- 
pator)  for  his  son  Demetrius.  Antiochus  Epiphanes  had  been 
able  to  usurp  it  because  Demetrius  had  been  sent  to  Rome  as  a 
hostage.  Just  at  the  time  when  Lysias  succeeded  in  defeating 
Philip,  his  rival,  this  Demetrius  escaped  from  Rome  and  landed 
in  Syria.  The  troops  received  him  with  open  arms  and  deliv- 
ered Antiochus  V  and  Lysias  into  his  hands.  Questions  about 
the  succession  were  settled  (as  was  supposed)  by  the  execution  of 
the  young  Antiochus.  Demetrius  would  not  have  been  disposed 
to  interfere  with  the  settlement  made  at  Jerusalem,  had  he  not 
been  appealed  to  by  the  Hellenising  Jews.  A  certain  Alkimus 
(Jakim  was  his  Hebrew  name)  had  aspirations  for  the  high-priest- 
hood. It  is  possible  that  he  was  in  the  direct  line  of  succession ; 
we  have  seen  that  the  first  Hellenistic  influences  in  Jerusalem 
came  from  members  of  the  family  of  Aaron.  The  Chasidim,  as 
we  know,  recognised  his  legitimacy.  At  the  court  of  Demetrius 
he  complained  of  the  persecution  of  the  orthodox  party  and 
asked  that  a  royal  officer  be  appointed  to  investigate  affairs  in 
Palestine.  In  truth,  the  public  peace  was  hardly  likely  to  be  kept 
while  the  Jews  themselves  were  so  divided.  The  Maccabeans 
regarded  the  Hellenisers  as  renegades,  and  were  in  turn  looked 
down  upon  as  outlaws  and  brigands.  When  the  government 
had  no  adequate  police  force  on  the  spot,  we  can  imagine  the 
aspect  of  affairs  in  Jerusalem. 

The  suggestion  of  Alkimus  was  adopted  and  Bacchides  was 
sent  to  investigate.  We  can  hardly  blame  him  for  not  appreciat- 
ing the  piety  of  the  Maccabeans,  in  whom  he  could  see  only  dis- 


464  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

turbers  of  the  king's  peace.  But  it  was  gratuitous  cruelty — not 
only  a  crime  but  a  blunder — -to  abuse  those  who  were  willing  to 
submit  to  the  royal  will.  The  Chasidim  were  ready  to  receive 
Alkimus,  recognising  the  legitimacy  of  his  high-priestly  blood. 
But  he  had  no  desire  except  to  be  representative  of  his  party. 
Pretending  to  be  friendly  to  the  Chasidim,  he  got  them  into  his 
power  and  put  sixty  of  them  to  death  in  one  day.  Bacchides 
laid  waste  the  country  about  Jerusalem,  looting  and  murdering. 
After  terrorising  the  people  sufficiently,  as  he  supposed,  he  re- 
turned to  Antioch,  leaving  a  force  of  soldiers  under  Alkimus's 
command. 

Alkimus  continued  to  take  his  revenge  on  the  Chasidim,  and 
the  folly  of  his  measures  was  soon  evident.  He  actually  drove 
everybody  who  would  be  faithful  to  his  religion  into  the  arms  of 
Judas.  Judas  therefore  soon  became  strong  enough  to  take  the 
offensive  and  to  recompense  the  persecutors  sevenfold  into  their 
bosom.  It  needs  no  demonstration  that  the  seasoned  warrior 
was  more  than  a  match  for  the  tyrannical  high-priest.  Alkimus 
was  obliged  to  appeal  again  to  the  central  authority,  and  Ni- 
canor,  one  of  the  generals  who  had  fought  under  Gorgias,  was  sent 
to  Jerusalem.  An  effort  to  get  possession  of  Judas' s  person  by 
treachery  failed,  and  a  skirmish  resulted  in  a  reverse  for  Nicanor. 
When  the  Syrian  came  to  Jerusalem  the  priests  showed  their 
friendly  disposition  and  pointed  out  the  sacrifice  they  were  offer- 
ing for  the  king.  But  Nicanor's  wrath  against  Judas  included 
all  Jews,  no  matter  whether  they  were  loyal  or  not.  He  broke 
out  in  scoffing  and  reviling  and  swore  that  if  Judas  was  not  de- 
livered to  him  he  would  burn  the  Temple. 

The  threats  were  not  carried  out.  Reinforcements  having 
arrived  from  the  king,  Nicanor  camped  at  Beth-horon,  the  scene 
of  Israel's  former  victories.  With  a  much  inferior  force,1  Judas 
attacked  from  the  northeast.  The  faith  and  valour  of  the  Jews 
were  again  crowned  with  success,  and  Judas  was  able  to  rejoice 
over  as  complete  a  victory  as  any  that  he  had  yet  attained.  The 
arrogant  Nicanor  was  among  the  slain,  and  his  head  and  right 
hand  were  sent  to  Jerusalem  in  evidence  of  the  victory.  Ni- 
canor's day  became  an  annual  festival  and  was  celebrated  till  dis- 
placed or  absorbed  by  Purim,  which  falls  at  the  same  season  of 
the  year. 

1  Three  thousand  men  according  to  I  Mace.  J  *°. 


A   NEW   HEROIC  AGE  46$ 

The  joy  was  of  short  duration.  The  resources  of  the  kingdom, 
when  fully  drawn  upon,  were  more  than  equal  to  the  most  des- 
perate valour  of  the  Jews.  Only  two  months  elapsed  before  the 
western  division  of  the  royal  army  appeared  with  Bacchides  and 
Alkimus  at  its  head.  The  impression  made  by  this  overwhelming 
force  was  so  great  that  Judas's  men  deserted  wholesale,  leaving 
him  only  eight  hundred  out  of  three  thousand.  The  few  that  re- 
mained advised  against  a  battle.  But  Judas  had  so  often  op- 
posed a  superior  force  that  he  was  willing  to  make  one  more 
attempt — or  perhaps  he  was  tired  of  the  unending  struggle  and 
willing  to  end  it.  The  desperate  charge  of  his  little  band  broke 
the  right  wing  of  the  enemy.  But  the  left  wing  closed  in  upon 
them,  and  though,  surrounded  as  they  were,  they  prolonged  the 
obstinate  contest  till  evening,  the  greater  part  were  cut  down. 
Among  these  was  Judas.  His  brothers  Simon  and  Jonathan,  with 
a  few  followers,  cut  their  way  through  the  opposing  ranks  and 
brought  their  leader's  body  from  the  field.  This  they  buried  in 
the  ancestral  sepulchre  at  Modein  amid  the  lamentations  of  the 
whole  people.1 

Thus  fell  a  man  who  deserves  to  be  enrolled  among  the  heroes 
of  the  nations.  Trained  in  the  hard  school  of  experience,  he 
became  a  soldier  of  the  first  rank.  Again  and  again  he  gained 
victories  in  the  face  of  overwhelming  odds.  With  his  whole 
heart  he  gave  himself  to  the  defence  of  his  outraged  and  op- 
pressed people.  There  is  no  evidence  that  ambition  for  himself 
ever  entered  his  thoughts.  He  refused,  indeed,  to  recognise  a 
treaty  into  which  the  Chasidim  entered.  But  this  was  because 
he  had  a  well-grounded  distrust  of  Syrian  promises.  If  he  had 
ambition,  it  was  ambition  for  his  people's  liberties.  His  death 
was  the  fitting  crown  to  nine  years  of  incessant  struggle  for  what 
men  hold  most  dear.* 

The  death  of  Judas  left  the  Maccabean  party  in  as  forlorn  a 
situation  as  can  well  be  imagined.  They  were  completely  in  the 
power  of  the  renegades,  and  these  did  not  hesitate  to  feed  fat 
their  ancient  grudges.  As  though  heaven  itself  had  turned 

1 1  Mace.  9  1-M.  The  defeat  of  Nicanor  and  the  death  of  Judas  both  fall 
within  the  first  half  of  the  year  161  B.C.  The  localities  where  they  took 
place  are  not  yet  certainly  identified. 

1  The  account  of  Judas's  alliance  with  the  Romans  (i  Mace.  8)  is  regarded 
with  just  suspicion.  See  Willrich,  Judaita,  p.  62  ff. 


466  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

against  them,  a  severe  famine  came  upon  the  land.  Bacchides 
ruthlessly  searched  out  and  executed  the  adherents  of  Judas. 
The  author  of  i  Maccabees,  a  sober  and  judicious  historian,  de- 
clares that  no  such  extremity  of  persecution  had  come  upon  the 
faithful  since  the  cessation  of  prophetic  inspiration.  A  mere 
handful  of  desperate  men  clung  to  Jonathan  as  their  leader  and 
resolved  to  die  with  their  weapons  in  their  hands.  It  seemed  as 
if  this  were  all  that  they  would  be  permitted  to  do.  The  land 
swarmed  with  enemies.  From  his  headquarters  at  Tekoa  in  the 
Wilderness  of  Judea,  Jonathan  sent  some  of  his  possessions  for  safe 
keeping  to  the  Nabateans,  who  alone  were  friendly.  The  train 
was  under  the  command  of  John,  another  of  the  Maccabean 
brothers.  On  the  way  it  was  ambushed  by  the  Bedawin1  and 
cut  in  pieces.  The  vengeance  taken  upon  an  unsuspecting  com- 
pany of  these  same  Bedawin  a  little  later  could  not  make  good 
the  loss  of  John.  But  the  successful  resistance  made  by  the 
Maccabeans  against  Bacchides  at  the  ford  of  the  Jordan  might  be 
interpreted  as  a  good  omen.z 

The  Syrian  general,  having  strengthened  the  fortified  towns 
throughout  the  district,  supposed  that  Judea  was  pacified  and  re- 
turned to  Antioch.  About  the  same  time  Alkimus  was  smitten 
with  paralysis.5  His  death  made  no  difference  in  the  policy  of 
the  Hellenisers  who  aimed  at  the  extermination  of  their  enemies. 
They  invited  Bacchides  to  fall  unexpectedly  upon  the  remnant  of 
Maccabean  adherents  and  wipe  it  out.  The  plan  was  betrayed 
to  Jonathan,  who,  after  inflicting  some  losses  upon  the  invaders, 
fortified  himself  in  one  of  the  wilderness  strongholds.4  Here 
when  besieged  he  was  so  bold  in  sorties  that  the  siege  could  not 
be  carried  on,  and  Bacchides,  disgusted  with  the  fruitless  strife, 
turned  against  the  Hellenisers,  put  some  of  them  to  death,  and 
made  peace  with  Jonathan.  In  the  treaty  he  agreed  not  to  make 
war  upon  Jonathan  and  agreed  also  to  release  the  prisoners  be- 
longing to  the  orthodox  party.  He  then  returned  to  Antioch, 

1  The  enemy  came  from  Medeba,  I  Mace.  QM,  and  are  called  Ambri,  a 
name  which  occurs  nowhere  else. 

*i  Mace.  QS7-*9.  Bacchides  had  crossed  the  Jordan  in  pursuit  of  Jona- 
than. 

1  The  orthodox  regarded  this  as  a  punishment  upon  him  for  pulling  down 
some  of  the  Temple  walls,  i  Mace.  gMf. 

4  Beth-basi,  otherwise  unknown. 


A   NEW   HEROIC  AGE  467 

leaving  Jonathan  practically  master  in  Judea — for  the  Hellenising 
party  were  always  dependent  upon  the  king's  soldiers. 

Jonathan  fixed  his  headquarters  at  Michmash — known  to  be  a 
strong  position  as  early  as  the  time  of  Saul.  Here  he  exercised 
the  rights  of  de  facto  ruler :  "  He  began  to  judge  the  people  and 
to  cut  off  the  ungodly  from  Israel. ' '  The  great  majority  of  the 
people  were  on  his  side  as  against  the  Hellenisers.  Jerusalem 
was,  however,  in  the  hands  of  the  Syrians  and  there  the  Hellen- 
isers were  protected.  Probably  Jonathan  had  agreed  not  to  at- 
tack the  city  when  he  entered  into  treaty  with  Bacchides.  For 
about  five  years  the  double  rule  went  on.  But  during  all  this 
time  the  power  of  Jonathan  was  increasing.  Events  in  the  other 
parts  of  the  empire  soon  gave  him  unexpected  prominence. 

In  the  year  153  B.C.  a  claimant  for  the  Syrian  throne  ap- 
peared in  the  person  of  Alexander  Balas.  This  man  was  put  for- 
ward by  the  King  of  Pergamum  and  was  supported  by  Ptolemy 
VI.  He  claimed  the  throne  on  the  ground  that  he  was  a  son  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes — which  was  false.  But  owing  to  the  sup- 
port of  his  two  sponsors  and  owing  also  to  the  popular  dissatis- 
faction with  Demetrius  he  soon  became  a  formidable  rival  to  this 
prince.  It  became  important  to  Demetrius  to  secure  the  support 
of  his  vassals.  Among  these  Jonathan  was  distinguished  for 
ability  and  courage.  It  was  this  state  of  affairs  which  gave  Jona- 
than advantages  never  possessed  by  Judas.  Jonathan  had  the 
tact  to  make  the  best  use  of  these  opportunities.  The  beginning 
was  made  in  the  same  year  in  which  Alexander  Balas  appeared 
(153  B.  c.),  in  which  year  Demetrius  made  Jonathan  high-priest 
and  prince  of  the  Jewish  people. 

We  have  seen  that  the  high-priest  was  the  civil  as  well  as  the 
religious  head  of  the  community.  The  embarrassment  created 
by  this  combination  of  offices  became  evident  at  various  points 
in  the  history.  The  Syrian  king  might — in  the  case  of  Mene- 
laus  he  did — put  into  possession  of  the  office  a  man  whom  the 
orthodox  Jews  could  not  recognise  because  he  was  not  of  the 
line  of  Aaron.  During  this  period  this  party  therefore  regarded 
the  high-priesthood  as  in  abeyance.  The  result  was  to  throw 
more  power  into  the  hands  of  the  popular  assembly.  It  was  by 
the  advice  and  consent  of  this  assembly  that  Judas  acted.  He 
was  never  inducted  into  any  official  position  in  the  common, 
wealth.  The  same  was  true  of  Jonathan  up  to  the  time  when 


468  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

he  was  appointed  by  Demetrius  to  the  office  left  vacant  since  the 
death  of  Alkimus. 

It  is  not  the  province  of  an  Old  Testament  history  to  give  an 
account  of  the  wars,  rebellions,  and  treacheries  which  came  in 
the  next  few  years.  Jonathan  showed  as  much  ability  in  nego- 
tiation as  he  had  shown  in  fighting.  When  he  thought  it  to  his 
interest  he  went  over  to  Alexander.  Under  Demetrius  II,  who 
displaced  Alexander,  he  increased  his  power  and  his  terri- 
tory. A  new  pretender  made  additional  promises,  until  it  was 
seen  that  Jonathan  was  becoming  a  danger  to  the  very  king 
whom  he  had  helped  to  the  throne.  Trypho,  prime  minister  of 
Antiochus  VI,  led  an  army  into  Palestine,  but  was  able  to  do 
nothing  against  Jonathan.  But  his  treacherous  invitation  to 
Jonathan  to  be  his  guest  at  Ptolemais  was  more  successful. 
The  Jewish  leader  came  into  the  city  with  a  bodyguard  of  a 
thousand  men.  The  guard  was  cut  down  and  Jonathan  was 
seized.  After  some  negotiation  with  Simon,  the  last  of  the 
Maccabean  brothers,  Trypho  put  his  prisoner  to  death. 

Simon  succeeded  to  the  high-priestly  office,  being  formally 
elected  by  the  popular  assembly  of  the  Jews  apparently  about  the 
beginning  of  the  year  142  B.C.  He  recognised  Demetrius  II 
as  his  monarch  and  obtained  from  him  more  extensive  conces- 
sions than  had  yet  been  made  to  any  Jewish  leader.  The  Jews 
themselves  regarded  the  accession  of  Simon  as  the  beginning  of 
their  independence,  and  established  this  as  the  beginning  of  an 
era  from  which  they  henceforth  dated  their  documents.  The 
concessions  of  Demetrius  were,  however,  on  paper  only.  The 
actual  power  was  in  the  hands  of  Trypho,  who  now  murdered  his 
ward,  the  young  Antiochus  VI,  and  proclaimed  himself  king. 
Simon  proceeded  to  make  his  own  the  powers  promised  by  Deme- 
trius. The  important  fortified  city  of  Gazera  was  besieged  and 
taken,  purged  of  its  heathen  emblems  and  abominations,  and  settled 
with  Jewish  colonists.'  More  important  was  the  reduction  of  the 
citadel  of  Jerusalem,  which  had  been  held  by  a  Syrian  garrison 
since  the  beginning  of  the  Maccabean  troubles.  The  fortifica- 

1  The  Philistine  cities  suffered  severely  in  these  wars.  The  Jewish  hatred 
of  idolatry  is  exemplified  in  the  destruction  of  the  ancient  temple  of  Dagon 
at  Ashdod.  This  building,  with  those  who  had  sought  refuge  there,  was 
burned  by  Jonathan,  I  Mace.  io84.  The  life  of  Simon  is  recounted  in  I 
Mace.  13-16. 


A  NEW   HEROIC  AGE  469 

tions  were  too  strong  to  be  taken  by  assault,  but  the  garrison 
was  starved  into  surrender  and  allowed  to  march  into  Syria. 
The  capitulation  was  a  cause  of  great  rejoicing  to  the  Jews,  as 
it  made  them  complete  masters  of  their  own  city.  Simon 
not  only  garrisoned  the  citadel ;  he  also  rebuilt  the  forti- 
fications of  the  Temple.  He  fixed  his  own  residence  in  the 
immediate  vicinity  of  the  sacred  building.  This  he  could  do 
without  offence,  since  he  was  high-priest.  His  son  John  Hyr- 
canus  was  made  commander  of  the  important  fortress  of  Gazera. 
Simon  distinguished  himself  by  justice  in  the  administration 
of  internal  affairs  as  well  as  by  energy  against  the  foes  of  Israel. 
The  author  of  i  Maccabees  praises  his  rule  as  a  time  when  peace 
and  plenty  prevailed  : 

"  He  brought  peace  to  the  land 
And  Israel  rejoiced  greatly; 
Each  man  sat  under  his  own  vine  and  fig-tree, 
And  no  one  made  them  afraid. 

There  was  no  one  on  earth  who  made  war  upon  them, 
And  the  kings  were  humbled  in  those  days. 
He  lifted  up  the  poor  of  his  people  ; 
He  was  full  of  zeal  for  the  Law 
And  cut  off  every  renegade  and  sinner. 
He  beautified  the  Sanctuary 
And  multiplied  the  vessels  of  the  Temple." 


CHAPTER   XX 

THE   PRIEST-KINGS 

THE  supremacy  of  the  Maccabean  dynasty  is  marked  by  the 
decree  which  confirmed  Simon  in  possession  of  the  high-priest- 
hood. This  decree,  which  was  engraved  on  a  bronze  tablet  and 
set  up  in  the  Temple,  was  issued  in  the  name  of  "  the  general 
assembly  of  the  priests  and  people,  the  elders  of  the  people  and 
the  dignitaries  of  the  land."  l  It  recited  the  benefits  conferred 
upon  the  land  by  the  Maccabean  brothers,  especially  by  Simon. 
It  then  declared  that  for  these  benefits  Simon  was  to  be  their 
leader  and  high-priest  for  ever,  until  a  trustworthy  prophet  shall 
arise.  To  him  was  given  command  of  the  army,  control  over 
public  works,  fortresses  and  munitions  of  war,  and  the  oversight 
of  the  Temple.  He  was  to  issue  decrees  in  his  own  name  and 
had  the  right  to  wear  purple  and  gold. 

If  we  inquire  wherein  this  decree  added  to  the  rights  and  dig- 
nities possessed  by  Simon's  predecessors,  we  must  remind  our- 
selves that  none  of  the  Maccabean  brothers  had  had  more  than 
an  ad  interim  authority.  To  the  high-priesthood  they  had  no 
hereditary  claim,  and  Jonathan's  appointment  to  this  office  by 
the  Syrian  king  could  not  make  his  title  legitimate  even  in  the 
eyes  of  his  own  adherents,  much  less  in  the  eyes  of  the  Chasidim. 
The  latter  party,  as  we  have  seen,  preferred  an  Alkimus,  hostile 
as  he  was  to  them,  because  he  had  hereditary  rights.  After  the 
death  of  Alkimus  no  one  seems  to  have  come  forward  to  claim 
the  succession.  The  awkwardness  of  having  no  one  to  preside 
over  the  sacred  rites  was  terminated  by  the  recognition  of 
Simon.  It  concerns  the  state  that  there  be  an  end  of  litigation. 
The  decree  making  Simon  high-priest  for  ever  was  intended  to 
settle  the  dignity  in  his  family — so  far  as  human  recognition  could 
do  this.  At  the  same  time  it  was  made  evident  that  the  popular 
assembly  was  not  certain  that  it  could  do  this  ;  the  settlement 
was  made  till  a  trustworthy  prophet  shall  arise.  Evidently  the 
1 1  Mace.  14 17~49.  The  decree  is  dated  in  Simon's  third  year. 
47» 


THE   PRIEST-KINGS  471 

doctrinaire  scribes  were  not  satisfied.  The  popular  assembly 
could  not  nullify  the  will  of  God  as  revealed  in  the  Law. 
Doubtless  there  was  room  here  for  grave  differences,  and  a  later 
time  brought  forth  severe  strictures  upon  the  family  that  without 
claim  of  blood  had  usurped  the  high-priestly  office.1 

We  can  hardly  be  far  wrong  in  ascribing  to  the  reign  of 
Simon  the  final  redaction  and  publication  of  the  book  of 
Psalms.  This  is  a  collection  of  lyric  poems  of  very  different 
dates.  That  some  of  them  belong  in  the  Maccabean  period  is 
evident.1  The  process  of  redaction  has  here  been  a  complicated 
one.  There  were  a  number  of  smaller  collections  made  at  dif- 
ferent times  for  devotional  use — books  of  private  prayer  we  may 
call  them.  Some  of  the  collections  bore  the  name  of  David, 
perhaps  under  the  influence  which  led  the  Chronicler  to  credit 
this  king  with  the  organisation  of  the  Temple  service.*  Zeal  for 
the  Temple  service  in  the  time  of  Simon  led  to  the  combination 
of  all  these  manuals  of  devotion  into  one  book.  Some  of  the 
Psalms  were  composed  for  the  Temple  service,  some  were  adapted 
to  this  service  by  being  rewritten  or  expanded.  The  line 
which  divides  songs  of  personal  experience  from  songs  suitable 
for  public  worship  is  indeed  not  very  sharply  drawn.  A  psalm 
of  personal  experience  may  express  emotions  common  to  many 
believers.  In  a  period  of  persecution  the  individual  prayer  is 
the  prayer  of  the  whole  community.* 

A  prominent  characteristic  of  the  time  in  which  many  of  the 
compositions  were  written  is  the  sharp  opposition  of  the  parties 
in  Israel.  The  writers  represent  themselves  as  oppressed  by  their 
arrogant  neighbours.  Sometimes  these  neighbours  are  heathen. 
But  in  many  cases  they  are  clearly  Jews  by  blood  who  ought  to 
follow  the  Law,  but  who  have  chosen  the  worldly  part.  It  is 
the  boast  of  the  pious  singer  that  he  has  not  sat  in  the  company 
of  these  scoffers,  that  he  hates  the  assembly  of  the  evildoers. 

1  The  Assumptio  Mosis  expresses  the  views  of  this  faction  (chapter  61). 

1  The  denial  cannot  be  accounted  for  except  on  the  ground  of  an  unhistor- 
ical  theory  of  the  closing  of  the  canon.  The  reader  should  examine  Cheyne's 
Bampton  Lectures  on  the  Origin  and  Growth  of  the  Psalter  (1891). 

'The  impossibility  of  the  Psalms  in  the  Davidic  collection  (1-41)  being  by 
David  is  pointed  out  by  Driver,  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament?  p.  374  ff. 

•  The  question  whether  the  ego  of  the  Psalms  is  individual  or  collective 
has  been  much  discussed ;  see  for  example  Smend  in  the  Zeitschr.  f.  d.  Alt- 
test.  Wifsensch.,  VIII,  pp.  49-147. 


472  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

Yet  these  evildoers  are  often  in  intimate  intercourse  with  the 
faithful,  against  whom  they  plot : 

"  Cruel  witnesses  rise  up  against  me, 
They  ask  me  things  of  which  I  know  nothing  ; 
They  repay  me  evil  for  good. 
But  when  they  were  ill  I  put  on  sackcloth, 
I  afflicted  myself  with  fasting ; 
With  bowed  head  I  prayed  as  if  it  were  my  brother, 
As  if  mourning  for  my  mother,  I  went  in  black. 
Now  they  rejoice  together  over  my  calamity, 
They  utter  slanders  without  end."  1 

It  needs  no  argument  to  show  the  appropriateness  of  this  lan- 
guage in  the  period  we  have  been  considering.  And  in  this 
period  also  we  can  understand  those  Psalms  which  take  up  again 
the  problem  of  the  book  of  Job.  The  renegade  Jews  were  often 
prospered ;  the  faithful  suffered  persecution,  privation,  even 
martyrdom ;  was  this  according  to  the  divine  justice  ?  The 
reflections  and  exhortations  of  the  Psalmists  show  how  this  ques- 
tion forced  itself  upon  them.  They  have  no  answer  for  it  except 
the  confidence  that  things  cannot  long  be  so,  that  Yahweh  will 
soon  intervene  for  the  deliverance  of  the  righteous.2  Prayer  for 
this  intervention  is  the  object  of  many  a  Psalm.  That  the  rescue 
of  the  pious  means  also  the  destruction  of  their  enemies  is  plainly 
indicated,  and  the  authors  do  not  hesitate  to  imprecate  those  who 
take  sides  against  the  true  God. 

Few  of  the  Psalms  show  a  hope  for  the  future  life,  in  the 
Christian  sense  of  the  words.  The  hint  in  the  book  of  Daniel 
concerning  a  resurrection  has  not  reached  the  authors.  They 
find  in  Sheol  only  the  dark  and  shadowy  abode  of  the  dead  ;  the 
manes  are  deprived  of  the  presence  of  God  :  "In  death  there  is 
no  remembrance  of  Thee;  in  Sheol  who  can  praise  Thee?" 
The  lesson  which  the  wise  man  has  to  teach  is  only  the  old  one 
that  man  being  in  honour  abides  not ;  he  is  like  the  cattle  that 
perish.  Hence  the  passionate  cry  for  deliverance  from  death 
which  meets  us  so  often.  The  sufferer  dreads  to  go  away  from 
the  presence  of  Yahweh  into  the  dark  world  of  shades. 

And  this  presence  of  Yahweh  which  the  worshipper  enjoys  is 

1  Ps.  35  "-15;  cf.  Pss.  41,  55.     The  difficulties  in  the  text  I  have  quoted 
are  considerable,  but  I  have  given  the  sense. 
«  Cf.  Pss.  37,  49,  52,  73. 


THE  PRIEST-KINGS  473 

His  presence  in  the  Temple.  The  persecutions  and  humiliations 
visited  upon  this  place  of  the  Presence  have  made  it  tenfold  more 
dear.  None  of  the  Psalms  are  more  vivid  in  their  expression  of 
emotion  than  those  which  praise  Jerusalem,  the  joy  of  the  whole 
earth.  The  lament  of  the  exile  draws  its  pathos  from  remem- 
brance of  those  happier  days,  when  he  was  permitted  to  walk  in 
solemn  procession  to  the  House  of  Yahweh  amid  the  shouts  and 
thanksgivings  of  the  pilgrim  throng.  Now  far  away  from  the 
sacred  spot  he  is  condemned  to  hear  the  scoff:  "  Where  is  thy 
God?"  His  comfort  is  the  hope  that  he  will  yet  be  brought 
back  to  praise  God  in  the  place  He  has  chosen.1  In  the  pilgrim 
Psalms  the  authors  express  the  fervour  of  their  joy  at  being  al- 
lowed to  go  up  to  Jerusalem — to  Jerusalem  the  joy  of  the  whole 
earth. 

In  proportion  to  this  affection  is  the  agony  of  the  pious  soul 
when  the  sacred  city  is  desolated,  as  it  was  in  the  Antiochean 
persecution.  In  sad  expostulation  the  Psalmist  reminds  his  God 
that  Israel  had  received  the  land  by  divine  grace,  and  had  relied 
on  a  continuance  of  that  grace.  Yet  what  had  they  experienced  ? 

"  Thou  hast  rejected  and  put  us  to  shame, 
And  goest  not  forth  with  our  armies  ; 
Thou  turnest  us  back  before  the  enemy, 
And  those  that  hate  us  take  the  spoil. 

Thou  givest  us  to  be  devoured  like  sheep, 
And  scatterest  us  among  the  heathen. 
Thou  sellest  Thy  people  for  naught. 
And  dost  not  even  name  a  price  for  them. 

This  all  came  upon  us  who  have  never  forgotten  Thee, 

Nor  have  we  betrayed  Thy  covenant. 

Our  heart  did  not  turn  away, 

Nor  did  our  footsteps  leave  Thy  path."  • 

If  in  such  circumstances  the  sorely  tried  believer  cries  out  to 
God  to  wake  and  see  the  straits  of  His  people,  so  in  the  time  of 
relief  he  records  the  triumphs  of  Israel.  Not  always  had  Yah- 
weh forgotten  His  people.  In  the  convulsions  of  the  Syrian 
kingdom,  His  people  had  not  trusted  Him  in  vain.  He  had 
been  their  refuge  and  stronghold.  It  was  He  who  made  wars  to 

1  Pss.  42  and  43— originally  one  poem. 

*  Ps.  44 ;  cf.  74  and  79,  which  speak  of  the  desecration  of  the  Temple. 


474  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

cease,  broke  the  bow,  cut  the  spear  in  sunder,  burned  the  war 
chariots  with  fire.  These  successes  strengthened  faith.  The 
plans  of  God  are  indeed  apprehended  by  faith  alone.  The  un- 
believer does  not  know,  nor  the  brutish  man  understand  them — 
the  fool  even  says  in  his  heart  that  there  is  no  God.  But  the 
believer  finds  in  the  present  experience  of  God's  mercies  a  prom- 
ise of  that  future  when  all  His  enemies  shall  be  cut  off.1  And 
in  view  both  of  present  successes  and  of  future  certainty,  all 
creatures  are  called  to  join  in  praise  of  Him  whose  mercy  endures 
for  ever. 

The  piety  which  here  expressed  itself  was  a  Bible  piety.  It 
nourished  itself  upon  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  now  the  ap- 
proved Word  of  God.  As  for  the  Law,  the  believer  rejoiced  to 
find  in  its  multifarious  precepts  the  method  of  showing  his  love  to 
their  Author.  The  first  Psalm,  written  as  a  preface  to  the  book, 
praises  the  man  who  walks  in  the  Tora  of  Yahweh.  And  this  is 
the  keynote  of  the  book.  Occasional  utterances  which  seem  to 
depreciate  ritual,  as  compared  with  moral,  obedience  are  only 
echoes  of  words  spoken  by  the  prophets.  They  show  a  desire  to 
attain  spiritual  obedience,  but  the  authors  are  far  from  doubting 
the  divine  obligation  of  the  Levitical  system.  The  same  man 
who  in  prophetic  spirit  refuses  to  rebuke  Israel  in  the  matter  of 
sacrifices  yet  declares  that  thank-offerings  do  honour  Yahweh. 
The  longest  Psalm  in  the  collection  is  devoted  to  the  praise  of 
the  Tora.  With  skilful,  if  somewhat  artificial,  method  the 
author  rings  the  changes  on  the  words  law,  commandments,  or- 
dinances, precepts,  instruction,  warning,  judgments,  word — in 
each  case  meaning  the  Pentateuchal  code  with  its  rules  and  its 
exhortations. 

And  the  other  collection  of  sacred  books — the  Prophets — were 
studied  as  a  book  of  fate.  The  author  of  Daniel  had  tried  to 
read  its  secret.  The  fact  that  his  date  was  wrong  had  not  proved 
his  expectation  false.  The  postulates  of  Israel's  faith  compelled 
the  conclusion  that  Yahweh  must  give  the  kingdom  to  His  own 
people.  To  Him  belongs  the  predicate  living,  in  contrast  with 
the  gods  of  the  heathen  which  are  only  dumb  idols.1  He  is  God 

1  Pss.  92,  93,  96,  and  others.  Ps.  68  deserves  especial  mention  as  a  vivid 
portrayal  of  the  feelings  of  the  pious  in  view  of  the  Maccabean  successes. 

1  Ps.  115.  Parallel  passages  in  Isaiah,  40,  44,  and  46  will  occur  to  every, 
one. 


THE   PRIEST-KINGS'  475 

of  the  whole  earth.  The  wonders  of  earth,  sea,  and  sky  are  His  crea- 
tion. And  He  is  the  judge  of  the  whole  earth.  Even  the  angels 
who  have  abused  the  power  He  has  committed  to  them  will  be 
called  to  account.1  When  the  great  assembly  of  the  nations  is 
held,  Israel  will  be  justified  and  the  Gentiles  will  be  condemned. 
In  fact,  in  the  imagination  of  the  writer,  Israel  has  already 
been  seated  on  Zion  as  the  son  of  Yahweh.  Against  him  the  na- 
tions shall  rage  in  vain.  All  God's  people  may  claim  a  share 
in  this  kingly  pre-eminence.  In  this  faith  one  writer  lays  down 
the  principles  of  the  theocratic  government : 

"  My  eye  shall  be  upon  the  faithful ;  he  shall  sit  with  me. 
He  who  walks  in  the  right  way  shall  serve  me. 
He  who  exercises  deceit  shall  not  dwell  in  my  house. 
Whoever  speaks  lies  shall  not  remain  in  my  presence. 
Daily  will  I  root  out  the  wicked  in  the  land, 
And  cut  off  from  the  city  of  Yahweh  all  workers  of  iniquity."1 

We  can  imagine  one  of  the  Maccabean  princes  adopting  these 
resolutions  as  his  programme,  and  in  pursuance  of  them  cutting 
off  the  Hellenisers  who  had  wrought  iniquity  in  the  land. 

But  these  Messianic  expectations  naturally  implied  a  revival 
of  the  Davidic  dynasty.  The  early  Hasmoneans  might  be  re- 
garded as  so  many  Davids,  walking  in  his  spirit  and  power.  But 
as  the  dynasty  continued,  it  failed  to  fulfil — any  dynasty  must 
fail  to  fulfil — the  expectation  of  the  idealist.  And  so  we  find 
hopes  of  a  personal  Messiah  coming  to  the  front.  One  Psalm 
describes  the  ideal  king  for  us,  another  recounts  the  prophecies 
concerning  David,  with  an  expostulation  against  their  non-fulfil- 
ment.* These  expectations  were  likely  to  issue  in  discontent 
and  revolt.  No  civil  ruler  has  ever  satisfied  ecclesiastical  ideals. 

But  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  situation  under  Simon  was 
an  advance  on  anything  the  faithful  Jews  had  experienced  since 
the  time  of  Nehemiah.  There  was  practical  independence  of 
foreign  power  ;  the  Temple  was  no  longer  in  danger  of  desecra- 
tion ;  faithful  observers  of  the  Law  were  no  more  persecuted ; 

1  Pss.  58  and  82. 

*  Ps.  101  '•'.     The  Messiah  of  Ps.  2  seems  to  be  Israel,  the  nation. 

•Ps.  So,10-5*,  cf.  72  and  132.  The  priestly  kingship,  justified  by  the  ex- 
ample of  Melchizedek  in  Ps.  1 10,  may  be  an  attempt  to  sanction  the  position 
of  the  Maccabean  princes. 


476  OLD   TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

they  were,  in  fact,  in  favour  with  the  government.  Many  unfortu- 
nates who  had  been  sold  into  slavery  were  redeemed  and  brought 
home.  Jews  outside  Palestine  could  again  look  to  Jerusalem  as 
their  joy  and  pride.  When  they  made  their  pilgrimage  they  found 
Jerusalem  beautiful  for  situation,  and  the  Temple  services  were 
administered  in  a  manner  worthy  of  the  seat  of  the  Great  King. 

The  deep  and  earnest  spiritual  life  which  shows  itself  in  the 
Psalms  was  attached  (as  we  have  seen)  to  the  sacred  books  of  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets.  The  power  of  these  books  for  good  was 
extended  at  about  this  period  by  their  translation  into  the  Greek 
language.  The  Jewish  colony  at  Alexandria  had  been  increased 
in  numbers  during  the  Maccabean  troubles.  In  the  great  centre 
of  Greek  culture  the  Jews  were  obliged  to  learn  the  Greek  lan- 
guage. The  generation  that  grew  up  in  Greek  surroundings  had 
little  use  for  Hebrew,  which  even  in  Palestine  was  becoming  the 
language  of  the  learned  alone.  Nothing  was  more  natural  than 
that  the  Law — the  rule  of  life  for  every  faithful  Jew — should  be 
put  into  a  Greek  dress.  So  far  as  we  know,  this  was  the  first 
attempt  to  extend  the  influence  of  an  important  literary  work  by 
translation  from  one  language  to  another. 

Jewish  tradition,  which  delighted  to  embellish  history  with  the 
acts  and  monuments  of  Gentile  kings,  has  invented  a  story  de- 
signed to  dignify  the  translation  of  the  Law.  One  Aristeas  is 
represented  as  writing  an  account  of  it  to  a  friend.  Both  the 
writer  and  the  receiver  of  the  letter  are  intended  to  be  Gentiles. 
Aristeas  recounts  that  being  an  officer  at  the  court  of  Ptolemy 
Philadelphus  he  heard  the  king  inquire  of  his  librarian,  Demetrius 
Phalereus,  concerning  the  progress  of  the  great  library  under  his 
charge.  Demetrius,  after  giving  the  number  of  books  at  two 
hundred  thousand,  suggests  to  the  king  that  the  Jewish  Law  is 
worthy  of  a  place  in  the  collection.  In  answer  to  further  in- 
quiries he  explains  that  it  will  be  necessary  to  have  the  Law  in 
translation.  Moved  by  the  suggestion  the  king  sends  Aristeas 
with  another  high  official  to  the  high-priest  at  Jerusalem.  The 
letter  with  which  they  are  intrusted  asks  that  six  competent 
men  from  each  tribe  be  sent  to  make  a  translation  of  the  Law 
from  Hebrew  into  Greek.  The  writer  takes  occasion  to  describe 
the  gifts  interchanged  by  the  king  and  the  high-priest,  and  to  set 
forth  the  glory  of  the  Temple  and  its  services.  The  mission  is 
successful  and  the  seventy-two  interpreters  come  to  Alexandria, 


THE   PRIEST-KINGS  477 

where  they  are  lavishly  entertained  by  the  king  and  where  they 
successfully  execute  their  work.  The  newly  made  version  of  the 
Law  is  submitted  to  the  Jewish  community  of  Alexandria  and  is 
approved  by  them. 

There  are  few  cases  where  the  falsity  of  a  document  is  so  evi- 
dent as  here.  The  only  historical  basis  for  the  letter  is  the  inter- 
est taken  by  Philadelphus  in  the  Alexandrian  library.  All  else 
is  fiction  pure  and  simple,  and  instructive  only  as  showing  the 
length  to  which  a  Jew  would  go  to  glorify  his  people  and  their 
institutions.1  The  document  would  hardly  be  worth  mention 
except  for  the  influence  it  has  had  on  Christian  views  of  the 
inspiration  of  the  so-called  Septuagint. 

What  we  know  about  the  matter  may  be  put  into  a  single  sen- 
tence. The  grandson  of  Jesus  Sirach,  who  expressly  tells  us  that 
he  came  into  Egypt  in  the  thirty-eighth  year  of  Euergetes — 
which  would  be  132  B.C. — speaks  of  the  Law,  the  Prophecies, 
and  the  other  books  as  having  already  been  translated.  That 
his  own  translation  was  undertaken  soon  after  coming  into  Egypt 
we  do  not  know  ;  nor  need  we  date  the  translations  of  which  he 
speaks,  much  before  the  time  of  his  own  writing.  If  we  suppose 
the  earliest  efforts  at  translation  to  have  been  made  about  the 
year  150  B.C.,  we  shall  probably  not  be  far  out  of  the  way.1 

The  translation  of  the  Law  was  naturally  of  great  importance 
for  Jews.  But  it  is  difficult  to  think  of  any  literary  interest  in 
such  a  work  on  the  part  of  Greeks.  It  is  impossible  to  think  of 
a  Greek  approving  such  a  jargon  as  we  find  in  this  version — a 
barbarous  dialect  which  grew  up  among  a  people  whose  thought 
was  Semitic  in  form,  though  they  had  learned  a  Greek  vocab- 
ulary. 

Nevertheless,  the  making  of  the  version  is  one  of  the  great 
events  of  history.  Among  the  Jews  of  the  Dispersion  this  book 
took  a  place  of  authority.  The  early  Church  adopted  it  as  its 
Bible.  Its  prophecies  confirmed  men's  faith  in  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah  ;  its  Psalms  were  the  comfort  of  a  new  generation  of 

1  The  statements  of  the  letter  were  refuted  with  great  prolixity  and  learn- 
ing by  Hody,  De  Bibliorum  Textibus  (1705).  As  to  the  historic  impossibil- 
ities, see  Wendland's  preface  to  his  translation  in  Kautzsch,  Pseudepi- 
graphen  des  Alien  Test.;  Willrich,  Juden  und  Griechen,  p.  33  ff. 

*  Willrich,  Juden  und  Griechen,  p.  156.  Schiirer  is  inclined  to  an  earlier 
date — the  third  century  before  Christ. 


4/8  OLD    TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

oppressed  believers  ;  its  histories  furnished  examples  of  fidelity 
and  heroism  when  men  were  ready  to  faint  under  their  burdens. 
Without  the  Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  it  is  difficult 
to  conceive  the  Church  coming  into  existence  at  all.1 

The  period  of  Simon  was  then  one  of  importance  for  the  in- 
ternal history  of  Judaism.  Externally  it  was  one  of  promise  and 
of  prosperity.  In  135  B.C.,  however,  Antiochus  VII  (Sidetes)  took 
a  hostile  attitude  toward  the  Jewish  ruler,  and  made  heavy 
demands  for  arrears  of  tribute.  The  army  of  Antiochus,  sent  to 
enforce  these  demands,  was  defeated  at  Jamnia  by  a  Jewish 
army  under  the  command  of  Simon's  sons,  Judas  and  John. 
The  occurrence  was  nevertheless  ominous,  because  of  the  attitude 
of  the  Syrian  king.  Soon  after  the  event  Simon  himself  was 
assassinated  by  his  son-in-law,  Ptolemy.  With  him  two  sons 
were  slain,  and  Ptolemy  endeavoured  to  seize  Jerusalem  and  the 
supreme  power  for  himself.  So  soon  had  the  vulgar  ambition 
for  power  invaded  a  family  which  had  stood  for  unselfish  devo- 
tion to  righteousness. 

The  first  result  of  the  murder  was  civil  war.  Ptolemy's  at- 
tempt to  seize  the  capital  was  frustrated  by  John  Hyrcanus 
(Simon's  third  son)  who  was  in  command  of  Gazera.  John  was 
also  able  to  possess  himself  of  the  greater  part  of  the  country, 
though  his  siege  of  Ptolemy's  stronghold  led  to  no  result.  The 
internal  troubles  of  the  country  were  soon  overshadowed  by  an 
invasion  conducted  by  Antiochus,  whose  siege  of  Jerusalem  last- 
ing a  year  brought  the  garrison  to  the  verge  of  despair.  Accord- 
ing to  Diodorus  Siculus,2  the  king's  boon  companions  advised 
him  to  make  an  end  of  the  misanthropic  people.  But  he  con- 
tented himself  with  exacting  the  arrears  of  tribute  and  razing 
the  walls  of  Jerusalem.  Hyrcanus  must  have  found  the  terms 
humiliating  enough,  but  he  did  not  have  to  wait  long  for  his 
opportunity. 

1  The  title  Septuagint  applied  to  a  Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament, 
arose  from  the  tradition  of  70  or  72  translators.  It  has  been  suggested 
recently  that  70  was  the  number  of  members  in  the  Sanhedrin  at  Alexandria, 
under  whose  auspices  the  version  of  the  Law  was  first  published. 

1  Book  XXXIV.  I  owe  the  citation  to  Willrich,  Juden  und  Griechen,  p. 
6l  f.  The  statement  that  Hyrcanus  plundered  the  tomb  of  David  of  its  treas- 
ures in  order  to  pay  the  exactions  need  not  be  taken  seriously  (Josephus, 
Ant.,  VII,  15,  3).  On  the  theory  that  the  Romans  intervened  in  favour  of 
the  Jews,  see  Schurer,  Gesth.  d.  Jiid.  Volkcs?  I,  p.  261  f. 


THE   PRIEST-KINGS  479 

Antiochus  was  called  to  the  East  by  the  customary  revolt  of 
his  provinces  and  met  his  death  in  battle  against  the  Parthians 
(129  B.C.).  Hyrcanus  accompanied  him  on  this  campaign  but 
was  not  involved  in  the  catastrophe.  The  weak  Demetrius  II 
was  not  able  to  enforce  any  claims  against  the  Jews,  and  Hyrcanus 
saw  his  advantage.  With  an  energy  that  reminds  us  of  the  best 
of  his  predecessors,  he  moved  to  regain  the  territory  that  had 
belonged  to  his  father  and  in  the  process  took  revenge  on  the 
hereditary  enemies  of  Israel — the  Samaritans.  The  schismatic 
Temple  on  Gerizim  was  destroyed.  Even  more  important  for 
future  history  was  the  conquest  of  the  Idumeans,  who  were  com- 
pelled to  submit  to  the  rite  of  circumcision  and  thus  to  become 
a  part  of  the  Jewish  body  politic.  Hyrcanus  made  a  new  depart- 
ure in  the  policy  of  his  house,  moreover,  by  enlisting  mercenaries 
in  his  army  instead  of  carrying  on  his  wars  by  citizens  of  the 
commonwealth.  Continued  strife  of  pretenders  to  the  Syrian 
throne  allowed  him  to  carry  out  his  plans  without  serious  opposi- 
tion. The  weakness  of  the  crown  is  attested  by  the  fact  that  the 
new  Antiochus  was  appealed  to  by  the  Samaritans  to  help  them 
in  the  siege,  but  was  able  to  accomplish  nothing  against  the  Jew- 
ish army. 

The  reign  of  John  Hyrcanus  brought  into  prominence  the  two 
tendencies  which  had  existed  among  the  Jews  since  the  time  of 
Jonathan.  The  old  Hellenists  had  disappeared.  All  the  sub- 
jects of  Hyrcanus  were,  externally  at  least,  devoted  to  the  an- 
cestral religion,  worshipped  none  but  Yahweh,  and  desired  the 
administration  of  none  but  the  Mosaic  rites.  But,  as  we  saw 
during  the  Maccabean  struggle,  there  were  degrees  of  devotion. 
The  Chasidim  had  always  emphasised  the  observance  of  the  Law 
from  the  religious  point  of  view — the  whole  duty  of  man  was  to 
obey  the  will  of  God  as  laid  down  in  His  Book.  When  they  were 
allowed  to  follow  this  principle,  they  withdrew  from  the  struggle  for 
Jewish  liberty.  They  thought  it  no  part  of  their  duty  to  establish 
the  kingdom — God  would  establish  it  by  His  direct  intervention 
when  the  time  should  come.  Because  of  this  withdrawal,  or 
because  they  held  aloof  from  the  common  people,  they  received 
the  name  Pharisees  or  Separatists.1  Since  their  whole  strength 
was  given  to  the  study  and  observance  of  the  Law,  they  regarded 

1  Peruihim  is  the  Hebrew  form.  On  this  whole  subject,  see  Wellhausen, 
Pkarisder  und  Sadducdtr  (1874). 


480  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

themselves  as  the  rightful  leaders  and  teachers  of  the  people.  And 
the  people  for  the  most  part  conceded  the  claim.  Obedience  to 
the  six  hundred  and  thirteen  precepts  requires  serious  study,  and 
the  exposition  of  what  is  commanded  or  forbidden  is  the  work 
of  professionals. 

It  was  inevitable  that  this  party  should  become  the  critics  of 
the  Maccabean  dynasty  as  soon  as  it  was  settled  at  the  head  of 
affairs.  Practical  politics  cannot  take  account  of  the  subtleties 
of  theoretical  jurisprudence,  especially  when  this  jurisprudence 
is  built  up  on  an  ecclesiastical  theory.  This  became  evident 
in  the  reign  of  John  Hyrcanus,  if  it  was  not  evident  before. 
John  was  minded  to  govern  according  to  the  Tora  and  to  give 
heed  to  its  Pharisaic  expositors.  According  to  Josephus,  he 
invited  their  leaders  to  a  feast  and  avowed  his  adhesion  to  them 
saying  "  that  he  was  desirous  to  be  a  righteous  man  and  to  do 
all  things  whereby  he  might  please  God" — which  (Josephus 
adds)  was  the  very  profession  of  the  Pharisees.1  The  majority 
of  those  present  testified  to  the  prince's  acceptability.  But  one 
Eleazar  demanded  that  he  lay  down  the  high-priesthood  because 
his  mother  had  at  one  time  been  a  slave. 

The  consistency  of  the  interlocutor  is  evident.  The  high- 
priest's  purity  of  blood  must  be  above  suspicion.  The  servitude 
of  the  mother,  however  unwilling,  made  her  incapable  of  insur- 
ing the  ingenuousness  of  her  son.  Hence  the  demand  that  he 
resign  his  office.  Whether  the  allegation  concerning  the  mother's 
slavery  was  true  does  not  especially  concern  us — Josephus  says 
that  it  was  false.  In  any  case  here  was  a  theorist  who  would 
oust  a  whole  family  from  office  because  of  a  suspicion.  That 
Hyrcanus  was  angry  we  may  well  believe.  What  embittered 
him  most  was  that  the  whole  party  seemed  to  defend  their  rash 
colleague.  On  this  account  he  broke  with  them  and  threw  him- 
self into  the  arms  of  the  Sadducees. 

By  this  name  we  designate  the  party  of  practical  men  who  had 
identified  themselves  with  the  fortunes  of  the  Maccabean  house. 
These  men  were  devoted  to  the  Law,  so  far  as  this  was  compat- 
ible with  their  plans  to  secure  Israel's  political  independence. 
They  were  the  party  of  the  priestly  aristocracy  and  probably  took 
their  name  from  that  Zadok,  whose  exclusive  right  to  the  priestly 
offices  had  been  asserted  by  Ezekiel.  The  Sadducees  were  in 
1  Ant.,  XIII,  10,  5;  cf.  Gratr,  Geschichte  derJuden,  '  III,  p.  128. 


THE  PRIEST-KINGS  481 

some  respects  more  conservative  than  the  Pharisees,  not  recognis- 
ing those  casuistical  interpretations  which  the  latter  party  re- 
garded as  equally  binding  with  the  Law  itself.  That  they  re- 
jected the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  as  we  learn  from  the  New 
Testament,  is  doubtless  explained  by  the  fact  that  they  did  not 
find  it  taught  in  the  Law. 

In  speaking  of  the  prominence  of  the  city  in  the  Greek  period 
we  conjectured  that  this  prominence  had  something  to  do  with 
the  rise  of  the  Sanhedrin.  The  reader  will  have  noticed  that  in 
the  Maccabean  period  we  hear  frequently  of  the  Council  or 
Senate  of  the  Jews.  Under  this  body  Judas  Maccabeus  acted, 
and  Simon  received  from  it  a  confirmation  of  the  power  con- 
ferred by  the  king  of  Syria.  Some  sort  of  council  of  notables  had 
existed  in  Israel  from  early  times.  One  of  the  Pentateuchal 
editors  imagined  such  a  body  active  in  the  Mosaic  age.1  The 
Chronicler  tells  us  that  Jehoshaphat  organized  a  court  at  Jerusa- 
lem, the  members  of  which  were  priests,  Levites,  and  the  heads  of 
families.  Nehemiah  found  such  a  body  in  existence  in  Jerusalem.1 
These  indications  are  sufficient  to  show  that  in  the  Chronicler's 
time  there  existed  a  supreme  court  in  Jerusalem.  As  the  line 
which  divides  judicial  from  administrative  functions  was  not 
sharply  drawn  in  early  times  we  can  see  how  this  court  grew  in 
importance,  especially  in  the  Maccabean  period.  When  the 
office  of  high-priest  was  vacant,  and  when  the  country  was  in 
revolt  against  the  king  of  Syria,  this  court  was  the  only  organ  of 
government  to  which  men  could  appeal.  Judas  Maccabeus  never 
claimed  to  rule,  and  he  was  glad  to  act  as  the  appointee  of  what 
i  Mace,  calls  (not  without  reason)  the  "  Senate  "  of  the  Jews. 
During  the  time  of  stress,  however,  the  membership  of  the  body 
must  have  changed.  The  Hellenising  nobles  could  not  remain 
in  the  midst  of  a  population  hostile  to  all  innovations.  As  they 
were  banished,  were  executed  or  emigrated,  new  members  would 
come  in,  men  more  in  accord  with  the  popular  will.  It  is  fair 
to  say  therefore  that  in  this  period  the  Sanhedrin  (the  word  is 
Greek)  became  democratic,  whereas  it  had  been  aristocratic. 
The  details  of  the  process  escape  us,  but  we  know  that  in  New 
Testament  times  the  most  influential  members  of  the  body  be- 
longed to  the  guild  of  scribes,  and  that  the  scribes  were  from  both 

1  Num.  ii,  uf.     The  verses  are  assigned  to  a  late  stratum  of  £. 
»Neh.  2»f.     2Chron.  19*. 


482  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

parties — Sadducees  and  Pharisees.1  The  animation  of  their 
debates,  which  not  infrequently  proceeded  from  words  to  blows, 
may  be  imagined. 

John  Hyrcanus  had  a  successful  reign  of  thirty  years,  dying  in 
104  B.C.  The  extent  to  which  vulgar  ambition  had  made  its 
way  into  the  Maccabean  family  came  to  light  after  his  death. 
The  administration  of  affairs  was  left  to  his  wife,  while  the  high- 
priesthood,  which  could  not  be  held  by  a  woman,  was  assigned 
to  Aristobulus,  his  oldest  son.  But  Aristobulus  had  no  notion 
of  a  merely  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction.  He  seized  the  supreme 
power,  put  his  mother  in  prison,  where  she  died  of  starvation, 
and  kept  three  of  his  brothers  in  bonds.  His  relations  with  the 
other  brother,  Antigonus,  were  friendly ;  but  evil-minded  per- 
sons found  opportunity  to  sow  discord  between  them,  and  Antig- 
onus was  cut  down  by  the  bodyguard.  The  people's  abhor- 
rence of  the  fratricide  is  manifested  by  the  legends  which  arose 
concerning  the  event  and  the  prodigies  which  preceded  it,2  as 
also  concerning  the  illness  of  Aristobulus  which  soon  followed. 
In  the  single  year  of  his  reign  this  prince  took  to  himself  the  title 
of  king,  something  which  the  Maccabean  rulers  had  not  yet  ven- 
tured to  do.  That  he  favoured  the  Sadducean  party  seems  evi- 
dent, for  he  is  said  to  have  conducted  himself  as  a  Philhellene — a 
charge  easily  brought  by  the  Pharisees  against  their  opponents. 
During  his  reign  the  territory  subject  to  Jerusalem  was  enlarged 
by  the  addition  of  Galilee,  whose  inhabitants  were  compelled  to 
adopt  Jewish  customs,  including  circumcision. 

Aristobulus  was  succeeded  by  Alexander  Jannaeus,  one  of  the 
brothers  whom  he  had  kept  in  prison.3  He  carried  out  the  pol- 
icy of  his  father  and  brother  in  favouring  the  Sadducean  party. 
For  this  reason  he  was  hated  by  the  Pharisees.  His  reign  was 
a  miserable  period  of  external  and  internal  warfare.  The  rule  of 
the  Maccabees  had  become  a  despotism  of  the  common  oriental 

'The  subject  is  treated  by  Schiirer,  Geschichte  des  Judischen  Valkes,  8II, 
pp.  188-214,  where  an  extended  bibliography  is  given.  The  testimony  of 
Josephus  (Ant.  XII,  3,  3)  concerning  the  times  of  Antiochus  the  Great 
most  be  received  with  caution,  but  the  references  of  I  Mace,  to  the  "  Senate  " 
of  the  Jews  are  above  suspicion. 

'Josephus,  Ant.,  XIII,  n,  2  f. ;   Bellum  Jutf.,  I,  3. 

3  The  power  fell  at  first  into  the  hands  of  Aristobulus's  wife  Alexandra, 
who  released  Alexander  and  raised  him  to  the  throne,  giving  him  also  her 
band. 


THE   PRIEST-KINGS  483 

sort.  The  king  sustained  himself  by  a  force  of  mercenaries,  and 
those  subjects  who  opposed  him  were  treated  with  the  utmost 
cruelty.  They  on  their  part  sought  help  from  the  moribund 
Syrian  kingdom,  so  that  the  reign  of  Jannaeus  may  be  called  an- 
archy rather  than  the  theocracy  which  it  pretended  to  be. 

The  details  of  Alexander's  reign  (103-76  B.C.)  may  be  read 
in  Josephus.  From  about  this  period,  however,  some  literary 
monuments  have  come  down  to  us,  to  which  we  must  give  a  mo- 
ment's attention.  One  of  these  is  the  first  book  of  Maccabees, 
upon  which  we  have  drawn  so  largely  for  our  history  of  the  great 
struggle  for  independence.  The  book '  is  a  dignified  and  elo- 
quent defence  of  the  Maccabean  dynasty  in  the  best  form  which 
such  a  defence  could  take — a  plain  and  for  the  most  part  accurate 
account  of  its  rise  to  power.  It  may  be  called  the  manifesto 
of  the  Sadducean  party. 

Very  different  is  the  tone  of  the  remarkable  book  which  was 
circulated  among  the  Pharisaic  section  of  the  people  at  about  this 
time — the  book  of  Enoch.1  Various  motives  combined  in  the 
literature  which  circulated  under  the  name  of  this  antediluvian 
patriarch.  One  was  undoubtedly  the  desire  to  trace  science  to 
ancient  revelation.  So  we  have  Enoch,  who  was  admitted  to  the 
secrets  of  heaven,  expounding  the  method  in  which  the  heavenly 
bodies  perform  their  work. 

But  this  is  only  a  subordinate  interest.  The  chief  purpose  of 
the  school  who  wrote  this  literature  is  to  develop  a  religious  the- 
ory of  the  universe,  and  so  to  justify  the  ways  of  God  to  men. 
It  takes  up  the  thoughts  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  and  carries  them 
to  their  legitimate  conclusion.  The  Ancient  of  Days  again  sits 
on  a  throne,  and  by  his  side  the  Son  of  Man  who  will  thrust  down 
the  mighty  from  their  seats  of  power.  This  Son  of  Man,  how- 
ever, is  not  the  nation  Israel,  but  a  personal  Messiah,  the  posses- 
sor of  righteousness  and  the  revealer  of  the  treasures  of  wisdom. 


'This  refers  to  the  main  stock  of  the  book,  chapters  I  '-I41*.  The  rest 
seems  somewhat  later  in  date. 

*  On  the  editions  and  versions,  cf.  Schflrer,  Gesch.  det  JuJ.  Volkes?  Ill, 
p.  207  f.  (English  translation,  II,  3,  p.  54  ff.)  The  latest  English  translation 
is  by  Charles,  The  Book  of  Enoch  (1893);  one  in  German  by  Beer  is  pub- 
lished in  Kautzsch,  Pirudepigraphen  des  alien  Testaments.  The  book  of 
Enoch,  as  we  have  it,  contains  additions  made  somewhat  later  than  the 
period  we  are  now  studying. 


484  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

He  is  already  in  existence  in  heaven,  having  been  created  before 
the  stars,  "chosen  and  treasured  before  Him  before  the  world 
was  made."  In  the  day  in  which  He  shall  be  revealed,  the  earth 
will  give  up  those  who  are  buried  in  it,  Hades  and  the  Abyss  will 
give  up  their  dead.  After  this  resurrection  will  come  the  Judg- 
ment, and  then  the  righteous  will  become  like  the  angels. 

The  advance  over  the  partial  resurrection  taught  in  Daniel 
must  be  evident.  And  so  is  the  advance  in  another  particular. 
In  Daniel  the  angels  who  rule  over  the  nations  are  hostile  to 
Israel.  Enoch  makes  them  worse,  and  in  developing  his  theory 
he  goes  back  to  the  story  of  the  sons  of  God  in  Genesis.  Two 
hundred  of  these  (it  is  now  said)  conspired  and  took  wives  from 
among  men.  They  taught  these  wives  the  secrets  of  sorcery. 
For  this  and  for  the  violence  of  their  sons,  the  giants,  they  were, 
at  God's  command,  confined  in  dungeons  under  the  earth  till  the 
great  Judgment,  after  which  they  will  be  cast  into  Gehenna. 
Enoch  is  introduced  as  the  herald  divinely  commissioned  to 
announce  their  fate  to  these  rebellious  angels,  and  he  is  shown  the 
place  of  their  punishment.  He  also  sees  the  divisions  in  Sheol — 
one  the  provisional  Paradise  of  the  faithful,  another  the  temporary 
place  of  confinement  for  those  who  are  later  to  be  condemned  to 
Gehenna,  the  third  for  those  who  do  not  attain  to  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  righteous,  but  who  are  not  wicked  enough  to  deserve 
the  deeper  damnation  of  Gehenna. 

This  literature  made  various  attempts  to  determine  the  time  of 
the  Messianic  deliverance.  We  find  one  statement  that  the  his- 
tory of  the  world  will  run  its  course  in  ten  periods,  of  which  seven 
have  passed.  The  remaining  three  are  to  show  successive  stages 
of  the  triumph  of  righteousness.  The  writer  regards  his  own 
time  as  one  of  degeneracy.  More  elaborate  is  the  vision  in  which 
the  history  of  the  world  is  set  forth  as  a  conflict  of  the  animals. l 
The  most  interesting  part  relates  that,  from  the  Assyrian  period 
on,  God  gave  His  sheep  (Israel)  into  the  hands  of  seventy  shep- 
herds. At  the  same  time,  foreseeing  that  the  shepherds  would 
exceed  the  instructions  given  them,  He  appointed  a  recorder  to 
watch  their  conduct.  These  shepherds  represent  the  guardian 
angels  of  the  heathen  nations — in  this  case  also  a  hint  of  Daniel's 

1  Enoch,  83-90.  The  great  horn  in  chapter  90,  which  is  identified  by 
some  with  Judas  Maccabeus,  and  by  others  with  John  Hyrcanus,  does  not 
fully  correspond  with  either. 


THE   PRIEST-KINGS  485 

has  been  expanded.  These  angels  of  the  nations  have  prompted 
the  persecution  of  the  Jews.  In  the  great  Day  which  is  approach- 
ing they,  as  well  as  those  other  angels  which  kept  not  their  first 
estate,  will  be  brought  to  account.  The  period  when  Israel  was 
thus  in  the  power  of  the  heathen  has  lasted  in  the  author's  view 
down  to  his  own  time.  It  will  be  followed  by  the  great  Judg- 
ment and  that  in  turn  by  the  Messianic  time. 

A  distinct  bias  against  the  Maccabean  dynasty  cannot  be  dis- 
covered in  this  book,  but  its  emphasis  is  evidently  laid  much 
more  on  the  expectation  of  divine  interference  for  Israel  than 
upon  any  help  of  man.  Along  with  this  expectation  went  an  in- 
creased hatred  of  the  Gentiles.  An  almost  grotesque  expression 
of  this  hatred  is  found  in  the  historical  romance  which  we  call 
Esther,  which  is  probably  to  be  dated  in  this  period.  The  plot 
is  well  known :  A  Persian  king,  apparently  the  Xerxes  whose 
name  was  so  well  known  to  Asiatics  and  Europeans,  takes  offence 
at  the  disobedience  of  his  favourite  wife.  A  young  Jewess  is 
chosen  as  her  successor,  being  the  most  beautiful  of  all  the  maid- 
ens of  the  kingdom.  The  dislike  of  Haman,  minister  of  the 
king,  for  Mordecai,  Esther's  uncle,  produces  a  decree  that  all 
Jews  shall  be  exterminated.  The  salvation  of  the  people  is 
wrought  by  Esther,  who  risks  her  own  life  for  them  As  the 
decree  of  the  king  cannot  be  reversed,  a  new  decree  is  issued  au- 
thorising the  Jews  not  only  to  defend  themselves  but  to  take 
vengeance  upon  their  enemies.  The  result  is  the  massacre  of 
75,000  victims  and  the  institution  of  a  festival  to  keep  the 
memory  of  the  event  alive ;  the  name  of  the  festival  is  Purim. 

The  unpleasant  story  is  certainly  unhistorical.  It  was  written 
to  justify  the  adoption  of  a  Gentile  festival,  which  seems  to  have 
been  the  New  Year  of  the  Babylonians  or  Persians.  The  mate- 
rial of  the  book  is  taken  from  Babylonian  mythology,  though  it 
has  been  wholly  Judaised.  It  does  not  seem  extravagant  to  sup- 
pose some  such  course  of  events  as  the  following :  The  Jews  of 
Babylonia  borrowed  the  New  Year's  festival  of  their  Gentile 
neighbours.  Nicanor's  day  also  came  to  them  and  was  cele- 
brated in  conjunction  with  the  other.  As  time  went  on,  the  true 
history  was  distorted  by  legend — the  popular  mind  only  held 
firmly  to  the  memory  of  a  remarkable  deliverance  wrought  on 
behalf  of  the  Jews.  The  myth  of  Ishtar  and  Marduk  lent  itself 
to  dramatic  treatment,  and  the  heroine  and  hero  donned  Jewish 


486  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

garb  as  Esther  and  Mordecai.  Put  into  literary  form  by  an 
author  who  found  the  folk -story  ready  to  his  hand,  the  book 
travelled  back  to  Palestine.  Here  a  party  had  arisen  who  were 
willing  to  forget  the  merits  of  the  Maccabean  princes,  and  who 
could  justify  the  established  festival  on  ground  furnished  by  the 
new  story.  The  bloodthirsty  tone  of  the  narrative  agrees  very 
well  with  the  time  when  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  were  at  swords' 
points,  and  the  figure  of  a  Great  King  who  heard  the  prayers  of 
his  Jewish  concubine  would  be  congenial  to  those  Scribes  who 
were  ready  to  appeal  to  the  Syrian  monarch  against  their  own 
(Maccabean)  princes.  Whether  Haman  and  Vashti  are  also 
mythological  figures,  as  is  now  supposed,  is  a  point  not  essential 
to  our  understanding  of  the  story.1 

The  book  of  Esther  found  a  place  in  the  Canon  because  it  was 
so  closely  connected  with  the  observance  of  one  of  the  festivals. 
It  belonged,  however,  to  a  considerable  body  of  literature  which 
comes  in  the  class  of  folk-stories,  the  material  of  which  was  bor- 
rowed from  the  mythology  or  legends  of  the  Gentiles.  Such 
stories  pass  from  one  nation  to  another,  and  are  recast  so  as  to 
suit  the  taste  of  the  readers  in  each  new  environment.  The  fa- 
mous Thousand  and  One  Nights  are  the  mediseval  redaction  of 
these  oriental  tales,  and  it  has  even  been  suggested  that  Esther 
and  Shahrazade  are  duplicates  of  the  same  original.  Without  go- 
ing so  far  as  to  affirm  this,  we  recognise  the  fact  that  the  her- 
oism of  a  woman  willing  to  undergo  any  danger  for  the  sake 
of  her  nation  is  a  favourite  theme  for  story-tellers  in  all  times. 
It  appears  again  in  the  book  of  Judith,  which  cannot  be  far  re- 
moved indatefrom  Esther.  In  this  story  Israel  is  delivered  from 
destruction  by  Judith,  a  fair  woman  who  ingratiates  herself  with 
the  Gentile  commander  and  slays  him  in  the  drunken  sleep  which 

'The  somewhat  complicated  problems  presented  by  the  Purim  festival 
cannot  be  discussed  here.  All  that  can  be  said  concerning  the  Persian  ori- 
gin of  the  festival  was  said  by  Lagarde  in  his  essay,  Purim  (1887).  The 
hypothesis  of  a  Babylonian  origin  was  advanced  by  Zimmern  in  the  Zeitschr. 
f.  d.  Alttest.  Wissensch.,  XI,  p.  I57ff.,  and  further  developed  by  Meissner, 
Zeitsch.  d.  Deutscken  Morgenl.  Gesellsth.,  L,  p.  296  ff.  The  comparative 
method  was,  however,  most  fully  applied  by  Jensen  ;  see  his  letter  to  Wilde- 
boer  in  the  latter's  commentary  on  the  book  of  Esther,  p.  173.  Zimmern's 
present  theory  may  be  read  in  Keilimchriften  und  A  lies  Testament,1  p. 
514  ff.  An  elaborate  discussion  of  all  the  questions  involved  (with  others) 
may  be  found  in  Frazer,  The  Golden  Bough,  III,1  p.  172  ff. 


THE   PRIEST-KINGS  487 

falls  upon  him  after  a  carouse.  The  strongly  legalistic  point  of 
view  is  seen  in  the  author's  conviction  that  the  people  cannot  be 
destroyed  so  long  as  they  refuse  to  eat  of  food  ritually  unclean. 

In  this  period  also  we  may  place  the  little  story  of  Bel  and  the 
Dragon  which  was  inserted  in  the  Greek  copies  of  the  book  of 
Daniel.  The  dragon  episode  is  plainly  mythological  in  origin, 
going  back  to  the  primeval  monster  of  the  Babylonian  creation 
story.  The  discovery  of  the  fraud  practised  by  the  priests  of 
Bel,  on  the  other  hand,  is  a  product  of  the  Jewish  imagination,  to 
which  the  impotence  of  the  false  gods  had  become  a  commonplace. 
In  this  connexion  we  may  consider  also  the  story  of  Tobit,  which 
has  come  to  us  in  the  Greek  Bible.  It  has  none  of  the  blood- 
thirstiness  of  Esther  and  Judith  and  is  on  this  account  more 
pleasing  than  either.  Its  evident  purpose  is  to  confirm  the  strict 
Jews  in  the  observance  of  the  Law,  showing  us  Tobit  suffering  for 
his  fidelity,  but  finally  vindicated  and  restored.  The  demon- 
ology  of  the  book  is  more  crass  than  anything  we  have  yet  con- 
sidered— the  heroine  is  persecuted  by  a  demon  who  is  in  love 
with  her  and  who  slays  seven  bridegrooms  before  the  consumma- 
tion of  the  marriage.  The  smoke  from  the  heart  and  liver  of  a 
fish  is  sufficient  to  banish  this  troublesome  enemy,  and  we  evi- 
dently find  here  a  bit  of  popular  superstition. 

In  this  case  we  have  a  Jew  represented  as  a  high  official  at  the 
court  of  a  Gentile  king.  This  figure  is  repeated  in  the  later 
Jewish  literature — Daniel,  Zerubbabel,  Tobit,  Ahikar,1  Mordecai, 
are  all  examples.  No  doubt  the  historical  Nehemiah  gave  the 
precedent  for  all  these  figures.  But  Nehemiah  was  not  the  only 
Jew  who  was  able  to  attain  high  position  at  a  Gentile  court.  In 
the  second  century  before  Christ,  we  hear  of  one  Aristobulus,  a 
Jewish  philosopher,  who  was  a  courtier  of  Ptolemy  VI  (Philo- 
metor). 

Among  the  literary  monuments  of  the  period  we  may  count 
the  second  book  of  Maccabees.  This  is  a  work  of  edification  ac- 
cording to  the  taste  of  the  times,  and  also  a  polemic  against  the 
Maccabean  princes.  It  emphasises  the  miraculous  interferences 
wrought  for  the  benefit  of  Israel.  At  the  very  beginning  it  urges 
the  observance  of  the  Feast  of  Dedication,  not  so  much  because 
of  the  Maccabean  recovery  of  the  Temple,  as  because  the  sacred 

1  Ahikar  is  mentioned  in  the  story  of  Tobit.  Zerubbabel  meets  us  at  the 
court  of  Persia,  in  the  Greek  Esdras. 


488  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

fire  hidden  by  Jeremiah  had  been  rediscovered  at  the  return 
from  the  captivity.1  In  the  rest  of  the  history  prodigies  of  all 
sorts  abound.  The  narrator  is  interested  in  these  for  their  own 
sake  and  also  because  he  is  able  by  them  to  enforce  his  own 
(Pharisaic)  point  of  view.  For  it  is  clearly  his  conviction  that 
the  observance  of  the  law  will  bring  divine  help  without  the  di- 
rect effort  of  man.  The  exploits  of  Judas  he  cannot  ignore,  and 
he  relates  them  with  satisfaction.  But  he  takes  pains  to  leave  out 
of  view  the  differences  between  Judas  and  the  Assideans,  shows 
how  scrupulously  Judas  himself  observed  the  Sabbath,  and  refuses 
to  allow  merit  to  any  of  Judas's  brothers.  The  result  is  a  cari- 
cature instead  of  a  history,  and  had  we  no  other  account  of  what 
took  place  in  the  period  our  ideas  would  be  wholly  wrong. 

Another  monument  of  Pharisaic  thought  which  has  come  down 
to  us  from  about  this  period  is  the  so-called  Book  of  Jubilees.1 
This  work  represents  Moses  receiving  from  the  Angel  of  the 
Presence  a  copy  of  the  heavenly  tablet  which  contained  the  early 
history  of  mankind.  This  is  the  original  which  our  book  pur- 
ports to  reproduce ;  in  reality  it  follows,  though  with  great  free- 
dom, the  canonical  book  of  Genesis.  Its  object  is  to  show  that 
the  Jewish  Law  had  been  followed  by  the  Patriarchs.  The  Bib- 
lical history  which  the  author  cherished  seemed  to  him  lacking 
in  this  particular — it  did  not  show  Noah  and  Abraham  to  be 
righteous  according  to  the  Pharisaic  standard.  In  rewriting  the 
earlier  history  from  his  own  point  of  view,  the  author  was  follow- 
ing the  precedent  set  by  the  Priestly  narrative  of  the  Pentateuch, 
and  again  by  the  Chronicler.  Having  in  mind  theories  of  verbal 
inspiration  and  inerrancy,  it  is  hard  for  us  to  appreciate  this  treat- 
ment of  a  sacred  narrative.  There  are,  however,  abundant  par- 
allels in  later  times,  especially  in  the  allegorical  exposition  of  the 
Old  Testament  by  both  Jewish  and  Christian  scholars. 

1  This  account  is  in  one  of  the  letters  which  the  author  prefixes  to  his 
work,  and  which  he  takes  from  an  older  source,  2  Mace.  1 10-2  '*. 

1  The  reader  will  bear  in  mind  that  it  is  impossible  to  date  some  of  these 
documents  accurately.  Jubilees  is  still  an  object  of  controversy  in  this  re- 
spect, some  scholars  dating  it  soon  after  the  Maccabean  uprising,  others 
placing  it  as  late  as  the  second  half  of  the  first  Christian  century.  The  book 
is  preserved  in  an  Ethiopic  version  and  a  considerable  fragment  also  in  Latin. 
The  latest  discussion  is  contained  in  Charles,  The  Book  of  Jubilees  (1902), 
who  gives  also  an  English  translation.  A  bibliography  may  be  found  in 
Schurer,  Geschichte  des  Jiidischen  Volkes*  III,  p.  279. 


THE   PRIEST-KINGS  489 

The  author's  veneration  for  tradition  leads  him  to  emphasise 
the  number  seven.  The  earliest  evidence  of  the  sacredness  of 
this  number  is  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath.  The  Biblical  nar- 
rative dates  this  institution  at  the  creation  ;  the  Book  of  Jubilees 
tell  us  specifically  that  it  is  continually  observed  by  the  angels  in 
heaven  as  it  is  by  Israel  on  earth.  The  Law  had  also  emphasised 
the  number  seven  by  commanding  the  Sabbatical  year  and  the 
year  of  Jubilee.  Our  author  makes  this  system  the  basis  of  his 
whole  chronology,  telling  us  how  many  jubilee  periods  and  how 
many  weeks  of  years  had  elapsed  at  each  important  point  in  the 
narrative.  He  makes  fifty  jubilee  periods  to  have  elapsed  (2450 
years)  between  the  creation  and  the  exodus.  Probably  he  ex- 
pected the  whole  duration  of  the  world  to  fill  a  hundred  jubilees, 
but  this  he  leaves  us  to  conjecture. 

The  emphasis  laid  upon  the  Law  may  be  shown  in  the  follow- 
ing particulars :  Pentecost  was  observed  in  heaven  until  Noah's 
time,  when  it  was  first  enjoined  upon  men  ;  observed  by  Noah 
till  his  death,  it  was  forgotten  by  his  children  and  renewed  by 
Abraham.  The  covenant  with  Abraham  is  dated  precisely  at  this 
season  of  the  year.  In  like  manner  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  was 
observed  in  heaven  till  the  time  of  Abraham,  who  began  its  ob- 
servance upon  earth.  The  Passover  also  is  dated  from  the  time, 
not  of  Moses,  but  of  Abraham. 

It  does  not  surprise  us  to  find  that  Abraham  from  his  youth 
abhorred  the  idolatry  of  his  fathers  and  even  burned  their  idol 
temple  with  all  its  contents.  Later  Judaism  is  known  to  have 
expanded  these  legends,  which  are  also  a  staple  of  Mohammedan 
tradition.  The  sacrifice  of  Isaac,  on  the  other  hand,  is  no  longer 
commanded  by  God,  but  suggested  by  Satan.  That  the  institu- 
tion of  tithes  is  traced  to  this  Patriarch  is  quite  in  accord  with 
our  expectations,  for  there  is  some  Biblical  basis  for  such  a  state- 
ment. 

We  have  already  met  the  theory  that  the  angels  who  were  ap- 
pointed over  the  nations  were  perverse  or  disobedient.  Our  au- 
thor makes  them,  rather,  the  tempters  of  men.  In  the  days  of 
Noah  they  began  to  seduce  and  to  befool  and  to  destroy  the 
children  of  men.  At  the  prayer  of  Noah,  God  commanded  that 
the  evil  angels  should  be  shut  up  in  prison.  But  Mastema  (Satan), 
their  prince,  pleaded  his  office  as  tempter  and  his  need  of  assist- 
ance in  it,  whereupon  one-tenth  of  the  number  were  left  free. 


490  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

They  have  now  the  power  of  afflicting  men  with  disease.  Noah, 
however,  was  taught  how  to  exorcise  them,  and  we  may  suppose 
that  Jewish  exorcists,  whom  we  know  to  have  swarmed  in  the 
Roman  empire,  claimed  possession  of  the  secret  taught  to  Noah 
and  committed  by  him  to  a  book.  These  evil  spirits  are  not 
identical  with  the  angels  who  sinned  by  marriage  with  the  daugh- 
ters of  men.  These,  our  book  claims,  have  been  committed 
without  exception  to  the  abyss  where  they  are  reserved  for  the 
judgment  of  the  Great  Day.1 

Concerning  the  good  angels,  we  learn  that  they  were  created  on 
the  first  day  of  God's  work.  In  the  antediluvian  period  they 
were  sent  to  teach  men  righteousness.  Pre-eminent  among  them 
is  the  angel  of  revelation  by  whose  mediation  the  heavenly  tablets 
were  delivered  to  Moses — an  idea  which  was  familiar  to  the  New 
Testament  writers.1  The  angels  regulate  the  seasons  and  the 
course  of  the  heavenly  bodies.  That  the  author  holds  perti- 
naciously to  a  year  of  364  days  we  have  already  had  occasion  to 
remark.  His  reason  for  insistence  on  this  point  is  that  if  the 
year  observed  in  heaven  is  not  observed  on  earth  the  whole 
system  of  feasts  will  go  wrong :  the  real  Passover,  Pentecost,  and 
Tabernacles  are  the  ones  observed  in  heaven,  and  if  different  ones 
are  observed  on  earth  then  the  holy  seasons  will  be  profaned.3 

Opposition  to  Gentile  customs  shows  itself  in  the  commentary 
on  God's  giving  clothing  to  Adam.  The  occasion  for  calling 
attention  to  this  was  the  Greek  gymnastic  practice,  which,  as  we 
have  seen,  gave  offence  in  the  time  of  Antiochus.  So  we  find 
Noah  enjoining  upon  his  sons  "to  practise  righteousness  and 
cover  their  secret  parts,  to  bless  their  Creator,  to  honour  father 
and  mother,  to  love  one's  neighbour,  to  keep  from  fornication, 
and  all  uncleanness."  *  Under  the  head  of  uncleanness  the  eat- 
ing of  blood  is,  of  course,  included.  The  prohibition  of  blood 
was  regarded  as  a  primitive  and  universal  law,  the  violation  of 
which  has  brought  all  Gentiles  under  the  curse  of  God.  Inter- 
marriage with  those  under  such  a  curse  is  consequently  an  abom- 
ination, and  it  is  here  objurgated  with  great  energy — the  man 
or  woman  who  is  guilty  of  it  is  a  defiler  of  the  sanctuary. 

1  Jubilees,  10  »•",  4  »   5  »•*     cf.  Jude,  v.  • 
*  Ibid.,  i  «-»,  2  ' ;  cf.  Acts,  7  »•  •»•  Gal.  3  ». 
»  /<*/</.,  6  "-M. 
«  Ibid..  7  *>. 


THE  PRIEST-KINGS  49t 

This  author  expects  a  Messianic  time.  The  course  of  history 
up  to  his  own  day  is  sketched  as  one  of  increasing  degeneracy, 
marked  by  a  progressive  shortening  of  men's  lives.  But  "  in 
those  days"  men  will  begin  to  seek  the  Law  and  to  turn  to- 
ward the  ways  of  righteousness.  Then  their  lives  will  begin  to 
grow  longer  until  they  reach  the  measure  of  a  thousand  years. 
In  their  old  age  they  will  retain  the  strength  of  youth  ;  no 
enemy  will  destroy  them,  but  all  their  days  will  be  days  of  bless- 
ing. Such  are  the  general  terms  in  which  the  good  time  com- 
ing is  described.  Little  emphasis  is  laid  upon  the  personal  Mes- 
siah. The  tribe  of  Levi  is  to  give  princes  and  judges  and  chiefs 
to  the  sons  of  Jacob.  This  points  to  the  predominance  of  the 
high-priests  and  probably  to  the  continued  rule  of  the  Macca- 
bean  family.  At  the  same  time  Judah  is  promised  dominion, 
and  it  is  said  that  the  Gentiles  will  fear  before  his  face.  The 
words  are  put  into  the  mouth  of  Abraham  and  might  be  sup- 
posed to  refer  to  David.  But  probably  the  writer  expects  the 
glory  of  David's  kingdom  to  be  renewed  by  one  of  his  sons.  In 
other  late  Jewish  writings  we  find  the  combination  of  Levi  and 
Judah  as  the  tribes  from  which  the  Messiah  is  to  spring.1 

Alexander  at  his  death  (B.C.  76)  left  the  kingdom  to  his  queen 
Alexandra.  Josephus  tells  us  that  by  her  husband's  advice  she 
made  peace  with  the  Pharisees,  and  gave  them  the  leading  place 
in  her  councils.  Whether  this  was  the  reason,  or  whether  she 
was  naturally  inclined  to  follow  these  religious  leaders,  her  con- 
duct accorded  with  this  programme.  "She  restored  those  prac- 
tices which  the  Pharisees  had  introduced  according  to  the  tradi- 
tion of  their  forefathers,  but  which  Hyrcanus  had  abolished."  * 
What  Pharisaic  traditions  were  restored  we  are  not  told.  But  it 
is  evident  that  the  method  of  enforcing  them  was  the  same  pur- 
sued by  the  other  party,  for  the  queen  was  obliged  to  restrain 
the  ferocity  of  her  new  counsellors.  The  members  of  the  royal 
family  were  no  more  in  harmony  with  each  other  than  is  usually 
the  case  in  palaces.  Aristobulus,  the  more  energetic  of  Alex- 
andra's two  sons,  was  openly  on  the  side  of  the  Sadducees. 

At  the  death  of  the  queen  (B.C.  67),  her  two  sons  were  in  arms 
against  each  other.  Hyrcanus,  the  elder,  was  already  in  posses- 
sion of  the  high-priesthood,  but  Aristobulus  was  now  strong 

1  See  the  note  of  Charles,  Book  of  Jubilees,  p.  188. 
'Josephus,  Ant.,  XIII,  16,  i;  Jewish  War,  I,  5. 


492  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

enough  to  compel  him  to  resign  it  and  to  resign  also  all  claims 
to  the  royal  power.  But  one  Antipater,  an  Idumean  by  race, 
who  had  held  high  office  under  Alexandra,  saw  his  opportunity  to 
attain  power  and  espoused  the  cause  of  Hyrcanus.  The  fears  of 
the  prince  were  wrought  upon  by  representations  that  he  was  not 
safe  in  Jerusalem,  and  he  fled  to  Aretas,  King  of  the  Nabateans. 
Antipater  accompanied  him  and  urged  Aretas  to  restore  Hyrcanus 
to  his  rights.  This  the  Arab  promised  to  do  on  condition  of  certain 
concessions  of  territory.1  He  found  a  considerable  party  of  Jews 
on  the  side  of  Hyrcanus — Pharisees  probably,  since  Aristobulus 
was  in  the  hands  of  the  Sadducees. 

The  invaders  on  behalf  of  Hyrcanus  succeeded  in  shutting  up 
Aristobulus  in  the  Temple  and  his  cause  was  looking  desperate, 
when  a  new  power  appeared  upon  the  scene.  The  Romans  were 
now  regulating  affairs  in  the  East,  with  Pompey  the  Great  as  their 
general.  One  of  his  officers,  Scaurus,  appeared  at  Damascus  and 
both  the  Jewish  claimants  appeared  before  him.  He  took  the 
part  of  Aristobulus,  and  the  patron  of  Hyrcanus  was  obliged  to 
retreat.  Two  years  later  (B.C.  63)  Pompey  himself  appeared  at 
Damascus.  Both  princes  appealed  to  him,  as  did  also  a  deputa- 
tion of  the  people  who  wished  that  the  monarchy  might  be  abol- 
ished and  the  priestly  constitution  restored.  No  doubt  the  mass 
of  the  people  were  tired  of  the  court  with  its  quarrels,  its  merce- 
naries, and  its  foreign  alliances.  They  thought  they  could  con- 
tent themselves  under  foreign  governors  if  only  they  were  allowed 
the  free  exercise  of  their  religion.  This  was  according  to  Phari- 
saic tradition,  but  the  rule  of  the  foreigner  was  yet  to  show  them 
how  impossible  it  is  to  separate  religion  and  secular  affairs. 

Pompey  gave  ear  to  the  people  so  far  as  to  command  Aristo- 
bulus to  restore  the  priestly  constitution,  apparently  intending 
that  he  should  resign  the  kingly  title  and  give  a  share  in  the  ad- 
ministration to  the  Sanhedrin.  In  dissatisfaction  with  the  way 
things  were  going,  Aristobulus  suddenly  left  the  camp  of  the 
Romans.  To  the  demand  that  he  surrender  the  fortresses  of  the 
country  he  delayed  answer,  hoping  to  prepare  Jerusalem  for  re- 
sistance, but  at  the  appearance  of  the  Roman  army  he  gave  up 

1  The  Idumeans  had  been  circumcised  by  John  Hyrcanus  and  thus  made 
full  citizens  of  the  Jewish  commonwealth.  But  the  conviction  that  the 
Herods  were  only  half  Jews  came  into  prominence  again  and  again  in  this 
last  period  of  Jewish  history. 


THE   PRIEST-KINGS  493 

the  city.  Without  his  consent  the  more  determined  or  the  more 
fanatical  of  the  people  seized  the  Temple  and  defied  the  foreigner. 
The  strength  of  the  building  was  such  that  it  had  to  be  reduced 
by  regular  siege.  It  took  three  months  to  breach  the  walls,  and 
the  storming  party  then  put  the  garrison  to  the  sword.  The 
Roman  general  profaned  the  shrine  by  entering  where,  in  theory, 
no  one  but  the  high-priest  was  allowed  to  enter.  But  he  spared 
the  treasures  of  the  Temple  and  arranged  to  have  the  service  con- 
tinued without  interruption. 

Aristobulus  having  forfeited  his  office  by  his  conduct,  the  high- 
priestly  organisation  was  restored,  and  Hyrcanus  II  was  recog- 
nised as  its  head.  The  districts  conquered  by  his  father  and 
grandfather  were,  however,  taken  away  and  united  with  the  newly 
organised  Roman  province  of  Syria.  The  principality  of  Judea 
in  its  diminished  extent  was  laid  under  tribute  and  Aristobulus, 
with  a  large  company  of  Jewish  captives,  was  carried  to  Rome, 
where  (B.C.  61)  he  was  shown  in  the  triumph  of  the  great  general. 
The  independence  of  the  nation  was  gone  for  ever. 

The  following  years  were  years  of  disorder.  The  Romans  were 
not  always  in  accord  with  each  other ;  the  Arabs  were  trouble- 
some neighbours  ;  the  Parthians  threatened  Syria,  and  the  Roman 
armies  were  a  burden  to  the  province  which  they  were  expected 
to  defend.  Some  of  the  proconsuls  were  notorious  for  their  ex- 
tortions, and  to  their  oppressions  were  speedily  added  the  miseries 
of  civil  war.  Alexander,  son  of  Aristobulus,  escaped  from  cap- 
tivity, succeeded  in  raising  a  band  of  soldiers,  and  made  an 
attempt  to  regain  the  ancestral  throne.  After  the  insurrection 
was  quelled,  Gabinius,  governor  of  the  province,  deprived  the  im- 
potent Hyrcanus  of  the  civil  power  and  divided  Judea  into  five 
districts,  each  under  a  council  of  notables — organised  we  may 
suppose  after  the  model  of  the  central  Sanhedrin.  To  Hyrcanus 
was  left  only  the  care  of  the  Temple. 

The  unruly  Aristobulus  again  raised  the  standard  of  revolt, 
but  was  easily  overcome  and  sent  in  chains  to  Rome  (B.C.  55). 
The  next  year  his  son  Alexander  renewed  the  attempt,  but  was 
also  defeated.  These  repeated  struggles  show  the  hold  which 
the  Maccabean  princes  had  on  the  people.  Already  we  taste  the 
quality  of  the  zeal  which  later  brought  Jerusalem  to  destruction. 
One  head,  however,  remained  cool  in  the  time  of  fanaticism—.- 
the  crafty  Antipater  appreciated  the  power  of  the  Romans  and 


494  OLD  TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

knew  how  to  make  that  power  work  to  his  advantage.  Gabinius 
found  him  useful  in  bringing  the  Jews  to  a  better  mind  during 
the  revolt  of  Alexander,  and  further  services  of  this  kind  did  not 
go  unrewarded. 

Of  Crassus,  who  succeeded  Gabinius,  we  may  say  that  his  little 
finger  was  thicker  than  his  predecessor's  loins.  He  appropriated 
to  himself  without  ceremony  the  Temple  treasure,  now  com- 
puted at  ten  thousand  talents.  Soon  after  this,  and  perhaps  on 
this  account,  we  find  the  Jews  again  in  rebellion.  Again  they 
were  defeated.  Thirty  thousand  unhappy  beings  are  said  to  have 
been  sold  into  slavery  at  this  time.  Antipater  was  again  useful 
to  the  Romans  in  this  affair. 

In  the  civil  war  Caesar  attempted  to  use  Aristobulus  against 
the  Pompeians,  but  the  death  of  his  client  frustrated  the  plan. 
The  victory  of  Caesar  over  Pompey  (B.C.  48)  showed  Antipater 
on  which  side  his  interest  lay.  He  rendered  the  victor  substan- 
tial aid  in  Egypt,  and  Ca?sar  rewarded  him  by  making  Hyrcanus 
ethnarch  of  the  Jews,  and  by  confirming  Antipater  in  the  office 
of  administrator.  Permission  was  given  to  rebuild  the  walls  of 
Jerusalem,  arid  the  Jews  outside  of  Palestine  received  some  bene- 
fits. Those  in  Alexandria  were  elevated  to  full  citizenship  and 
their  rights  and  immunities  were  set  forth  on  a  pillar  of  bronze. 
Other  local  decrees  exempting  the  Jews  from  onerous  restrictions 
are  dated  in  the  same  period. 

The  family  of  Antipater  profited  by  the  friendship  of  the  Ro- 
mans— Hyrcanus  was  too  weak  or  too  lazy  to  concern  himself 
with  the  work  of  government.  With  his  consent  Antipater's  two 
sons  were  appointed  to  military  command — Phasael  the  older  in 
Judea,  Herod  in  Galilee.  Both  were  able  and  energetic  men, 
but  Herod,  at  this  time  only  twenty-five  years  of  age,  especially 
distinguished  himself.  His  province  was  infested  with  banditti, 
a  natural  consequence  of  the  unsettled  state  of  the  country. 
Herod  made  short  work  with  these,  putting  their  chief  Hezekiah 
with  a  number  of  his  followers  to  death.  A  collision  with  Jewish 
prejudice  was  the  result.  The  theory  of  the  Sanhedrin  was  that 
they  as  the  supreme  council  were  also  the  supreme  court,  and  that 
the  power  of  life  and  death  was  in  their  hands.  The  Jewish 
bandits  had  been  executed  without  due  process  of  law,  and 
Herod  was  summoned  to  give  account.  He  appeared  at  Jerusa- 
lem with  an  armed  force  and  it  required  the  severe  conscience  of 


THE   PRIEST-KINGS  495 

a  revered  teacher,  Shemaiah  by  name,  to  hold  the  court  faithful 
to  its  duty.  As  it  turned  out,  Herod  escaped  sentence  only  be- 
cause the  Roman  Proconsul  warned  Hyrcanus  against  allowing 
harm  to  come  to  him.  The  case  was  fitted  to  throw  light  upon 
the  conflict  of  jurisdiction,  a  conflict  which  was  unavoidable  in 
the  circumstances,  but  which  none  the  less  kept  the  nation  in  a 
state  of  irritation  from  this  time  forward. 

This  is  not  the  place  to  give  a  biography  of  Herod.  His 
energy,  his  unscrupulousness,  and  his  shiftiness,  all  gave  him  value 
in  the  eyes  of  his  Roman  masters.  From  his  father  he  learned 
or  inherited  the  art  of  getting  on  the  winning  side.  The  Idu> 
mean  dynasty  "  took  part  at  first  for  Pompey,  then  for  Caesar 
the  father,  then  for  Cassius  and  Brutus,  then  for  the  Triumvirs, 
then  for  Antony,  then  for  Caesar  the  son ;  fidelity  varied  as  did 
the  watchword.  Nevertheless,  this  conduct  is  not  to  be  denied 
the  merit  of  consistency  and  firmness."  *  The  policy  was  not 
altogether  new;  something  of  the  same  kind  was  observed  in 
Jonathan's  dealings  with  the  Syrian  crown.  But  the  Idumeans 
were  much  more  proficient. 

Herod  did  what  he  could  to  give  his  posterity  a  claim  to  the 
throne  by  marrying  Mariamne,  the  granddaughter  both  of 
Hyrcanus  and  of  Aristobulus. f  Between  the  betrothal  and  the 
marriage,  the  fortunes  of  the  young  governor  fell  to  their  lowest 
ebb.  In  the  year  40  B.C.  the  Parthians  overran  Syria.  An- 
tigonus,  the  heir  of  Aristobulus  and  representative  of  the  Mac- 
cabean  claims,  secured  their  aid  by  the  promise  of  money  and  by 
agreeing  to  hand  over  to  them  five  hundred  Jewish  maidens.  The 
invaders  got  possession  of  Jerusalem,  capturing  Phasael  and 
Hyrcanus,  both  of  whom  they  put  into  chains.  Herod  with 
difficulty  got  his  family  and  a  few  faithful  followers  into  security 
at  Masada,  a  stronghold  in  the  Wilderness  of  Judah.  *  Leaving 
them  in  safety  he  made  his  way  to  Rome,  where  he  found  a  wel- 
come from  Antony  and  Octavian,  and  by  decree  of  the  Senate 
was  made  king  of  Judea. 

The  decree  of  the  Senate  was  in  effect  a  permission  to  con- 

1  Mommsen,   The  Provintes  of  the  Roman  Empire  (1886),  II,  p.  179. 

"She  was  daughter  of  Alexander,  son  of  Aristobulus  II ;  her  mother  was 
Alexandra,  daughter  of  Hyrcanus  II. 

*On  the  locality,  now  Sebbeh,  see  Baedeker,  Palestine  anJ  Syria*  p 
141  ff. 


496  OLD   TESTAMENT   HISTORY 

quer  a  kingdom  if  he  could,  for  the  country  was  actually  in  pos- 
session of  his  enemies.  But  the  energy  and  ability  which  had 
marked  his  career  as  governor  of  Galilee  were  not  lacking  in  this 
crisis.  With  an  army  recruited  from  Samaritans,  Idumeans, 
and  mercenaries  of  all  sorts,  Herod  soon  reduced  Galilee  and 
defeated  the  adherents  of  Antigonus.  When  it  came  to  the 
siege  of  Jerusalem  he  had  Roman  help,  at  first  very  grudgingly 
given.1  After  the  usual  obstinate  resistance  the  city  was  taken 
by  storm.  Antigonus  was  taken  to  Antioch  by  the  Romans  and 
there  beheaded.  Herod  was  in  possession  of  his  kingdom, 
B.C.  37,  nearly  three  years  after  his  nomination  to  it  by  the 
Senate. 

The  state  of  feeling  among  the  people  during  these  commotions 
is  revealed  by  a  little  collection  of  poems  which  has  come  down 
to  us  under  the  name  "  Psalms  of  Solomon."  Their  author  is  a 
member  of  the  sect  of  Pharisees.  The  first  thing  that  attracts  our 
notice  is  his  opinion  of  the  Maccabean  rulers.  In  their  over- 
throw by  the  Romans  he  sees  the  just  judgment  of  God.  These 
princes,  sons  of  Israel,  have  profaned  the  sanctuary  in  which  they 
ministered.  Their  luxury  and  their  sins  are  worse  than  those  of 
the  heathen.  The  ordinance  of  God  in  favour  of  David  and  his 
seed  has  been  set  aside  by  these  usurpers ;  therefore  He  has  over- 
thrown them  and  sent  their  seed  out  of  the  land.  *  The  judg- 
ment thus  described  is  the  one  inflicted  by  Pompey.  But  though 
Pompey  was  the  instrument  of  the  divine  decree,  his  defile 
ment  of  the  Temple  must  call  down  vengeance.  His  ignomin- 
ious death  in  Egypt  is  represented  as  a  punishment  for  his  sac- 
rilege. 

If  now  the  monarchy  of  the  Hasmoneans  was  looked  upon  as 
a  usurpation,  that  of  Herod  must  have  been  tenfold  more  offen- 
sive. The  Maccabeans  were,  at  any  rate,  pure-blooded  Israelites  ; 
Herod  was  only  an  Idumean  with  a  thin  varnish  of  Judaism. 
The  Messianic  expectation  nad  already  taken  such  shape  that  it 
would  be  content  with  nothing  less  than  a  miraculous  restoration 
of  the  throne  of  David  to  an  undoubted  descendant  of  that  king. 
The  fervent,  even  feverish,  desire  for  this  consummation  is  one 
of  the  characteristics  of  the  period  : 

1  Antony  sent  him  troops,  but  the  officers  were  bribed  to  inaction  by  Antig- 
onus. 

»Pi.  Sol.  i,  2»-«,  17*-". 


THE   PRIEST-KINGS  497 

*  Sec,  O  Lord,  and  raise  up  for  them  a  king, 

The  son  of  David  at  the  time  Thou  hast  appointed ; 

That  he  may  rule  over  Israel,  Thy  servant 

Gird  him  with  strength  to  crush  unjust  rulers, 

Purge  Jerusalem  from  Gentiles  who  tread  it  down  to  ruin. 

In  wisdom  and  righteousness  let  him  drive  out  sinners  from  our 

heritage ; 

Breaking  in  pieces  the  pride  of  the  sinner,  like  a  potter's  vessel ; 
With  a  rod  of  iron  breaking  all  their  strength."  ' 

It  was  evident  from  the  outset  that  a  Herod  could  not  meet 
this  expectation.  All  his  endeavours  to  conciliate  Jewish  feel- 
ing were  met  by  sullen  apathy,  or  by  fierce  resistance,  and  the 
resistance  was  motived  by  the  belief  that  the  Messiah  would 
appear  on  behalf  of  the  faithful. 

With  the  establishment  of  Herod  upon  the  throne  of  Jerusa- 
lem, Old  Testament  history  may  properly  end.  Herod  was  sim- 
ply the  agent  of  the  Roman  power ;  the  independence  of  the 
nation  was  gone.  In  fact,  as  we  look  at  the  Jewish  people  in  the 
time  of  Herod  we  see  them  no  longer  a  nation,  but  an  agglomer- 
ation of  sects  united  indeed  by  their  common  blood,  but  separated 
by  mutual  distrust  and  hatred.  A  small  fraction  was  bound  to 
the  reigning  family  by  motives  of  self-interest;  the  Sadducees 
were  partisans  of  the  Maccabean  dynasty  and  hoped  for  a  hieroc- 
racy  in  which  theirs  should  be  the  dominant  place;  the  Phari- 
sees were  students  and  expounders  of  the  Law  of  Moses,  hoping 
for  a  Messianic  time  in  which  the  Sanhedrin  would  bear  rule  in 
the  house  of  God,  with  themselves  in  the  majority.  Among 
their  followers  two  parties  developed  ;  one  was  made  up  of  the 
more  impatient  spirits  who  were  ready  to  draw  the  sword  for  the 
cause  of  God  and  His  Law  ;  the  other  was  the  party  of  the  quiet 
in  the  land,  who  were  willing  to  suffer  and  wait  for  God's  time. 
The  impatient  souls  soon  began  to  band  themselves  together  as 
Zealots  ;  the  extremists  in  the  party  of  quietism  began  to  retire 
from  the  world  in  monastic  communities,  and  are  known  as 
Essenes.  Thus  Judaism  was  hopelessly  divided  into  factions 
hating  each  other,  some  of  them  hating  the  Gentiles  with  equal 

*Ps.  Sol.  17  **-".  The  consent  of  scholars  in  favour  of  dating  the  Psalms 
of  Solomon  in  this  period  is  broken  by  Frankenberg,  who  refers  them  to  the 
early  Maccabean  period  (Die  Datirung  der  Ptalmtn  Salerno's,  1896);  se« 
Schttrer,  Gesch.  des  Jiid.  Volkes,*  III,  p.  1506*. 


498  OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

ardour.  Their  jealousies  and  bickerings  and  their  spasmodic  out- 
breaks against  the  Roman  power  do  not  belong  in  an  Old  Testa- 
ment history. 

But  during  the  period  we  have  now  reached,  the  Judaism  out- 
side of  Palestine  was  growing  in  importance.  We  have  already 
seen  that  colonies  of  Jews  were  settled  in  Greek  cities  before  the 
Maccabean  uprising,  and  that  emigration  was  stimulated  by  the 
internal  troubles  of  Judea.  In  the  Roman  period  the  Jews  were 
favoured  by  Caesar;  and  Herod  the  Great  did  as  much  for  the 
people  to  which  he  claimed  to  belong,  by  defending  their  liber- 
ties in  Greek  cities,  as  he  did  by  his  rule  in  Jerusalem.  It  is 
strange  that  a  world  mission  should  have  been  assigned  to  these 
Jews  of  the  Dispersion,  for  they  were  not  usually  liked  by  their 
Gentile  neighbours.  Their  shrewdness  in  trade,  their  clannish- 
ness,  their  ill-concealed  abhorrence  of  the  gods  and  temples, 
their  tenacity  of  Sabbath  and  circumcision — all  these  things 
caused  them  to  be  regarded  as  outlandish  and  uncongenial.  But 
they  had  some  things  which  made  a  deep  impression  on  the  more 
thoughtful  Gentiles.  They  had  a  serious  faith  in  God  and  they 
had  the  synagogue  in  which  that  faith  was  taught.  They  also 
had  a  Bible,  a  Book  of  God,  the  source  of  instruction  and  of 
comfort  to  despondent  or  perplexed  souls.  While  Judaism  in 
Palestine  was  nearing  its  end,  the  Judaism  of  the  Dispersion 
was  preparing  to  receive  and  propagate  the  new  and  expansive 
religion  of  Jesus  Christ. 


APPENDIX 


CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLE 

The  following  is  a  list  of  the  principal  dates  assumed  in  this 
work.  The  reader  should  bear  in  mind  that  in  many  cases  they 
can  be  no  more  than  approximate.1 

B.  c. 

to       Palestine  under  Babylonian  rule. 

Introduction  of  the  Babylonian  script. 


1400     Egypt  in  control  of  Palestine. 

Hebrew  clans  sojourning  in  Kadesh. 
1300    The  Palestinian  cities  nominally  under  Egyptian  rule,  but  harassed 

by  invasions  of  the  Bedawin. 

1270    A  clan  called  Israel  already  settled  in  Canaan. 
Period  of  Israel's  Judges. 
The  Song  of  Deborah. 

1030     Saul  establishes  the  Benjamite  Kingdom. 
loio     David's  coronation  at  Hebron. 

Writing  down  of  poems  hitherto  circulated  orally. 
973     Solomon's  coronation. 
963     Dedication  of  the  Temple. 

Collection  of   folk  stories  ;   traditions  of  the  Patriarchs  and  of  the 

Judges. 
Possible  beginning  of  legal   literature   (collection   of    decisions   as 

precedents). 

The  Blessing  of  Jacob  (Gen.  49). 
933     Jeroboam  leads  the  revolt  of  the  northern  tribes. 
Earliest  biography  of  David. 
Invasion  by  Shishak. 

900  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  2022-23). 
880  Omri  founds  a  new  dynasty  in  Israel. 
854  Ahab  at  the  battle  of  Karkar. 

Conflict  of  the  Baal  party  and  the  Yahweh  party  in   Israel  ;  Elijah 

leader  of  the  Yahweh  party. 
842     Jehu  of  Israel  and  Athaliah  of  Judah. 

The  Blessing  of  Moses  (Deut.  33). 
800     Legends  of  Elijah  and  Elisha  written  down. 
783     Jeroboam  II. 

The  Yahwistic  narrative  (J). 
750    The  Elohistic  narrative  (E). 
Amos. 

1  A  Students'  Chart  of  Biblical  History,  prepared  by  Professor  Kent  in 
•895,  will  be  found  useful,  as  also  the  table  in  Kautzsch,  Abriss  dtr  Ge- 
tfhiekte  dtsaltttstamentlicken  Schrif  turns,  1894  (now  published  in  English). 

499 


500  APPENDIX 

B.  C. 

743     Decline  of  the  northern  kingdom. 

Hosea. 

740     Beginning  of  Isaiah's  career. 
736     Ahaz  king  in  Judah. 

735     Invasion  of  Judah  by  Israel  and  Syria;    tribute  paid   by  Ahaz  to 
Tiglath-pileser  of  Assyria. 

Isaiah  opposes  the  policy  of  Ahaz. 

Deportation  of  inhabitants  from  many  districts  of  Israel. 
721     Fall  of  Samaria,  deportation  of  a  considerable  number  of  its  inhabit- 
ants, and  importation  of  foreigners. 
720     Hezekiah. 

Culmination  of  Isaiah's  prophetic  activity. 

Micah  1-3. 
701     Invasion  of  Sennacherib. 

Religious  reforms  under  the  influence  of  Isaiah. 
692     Manasseh. 

Religious  reaction  with  persecution  of  the  prophetic  party. 
640     Josiah. 
628     The  Scythian  invasion. 

Beginning  of  Jeremiah's  activity. 

623     Finding  of  the   Book  of  Instruction   (Deut.   12-19,    26,   28)  in  the 
Temple. 

Religious  reforms  on  the  basis  of  this  Book. 
620     Nahum . 

Zephaniah 

Habakkuk  I  and  2. 
608     Josiah  slain  at  Migdol. 
606     Fall  of  Nineveh. 
605     Battle  of  Carchemish. 

First  edition  of  Jeremiah's  discourses. 
597     First  deportation  of  Judaites  to  Babylonia  in  company  with  Jehoiachin. 

Zedekiah  king  ;   continued  activity  of  Jeremiah. 
593     Ezekiel  begins  to  preach  to  the  exiles. 
586     Fall  of  Jerusalem. 

Jeremiah's  latest  discourses. 

Ezekiel's  constructive  activity. 
561     Release  of  Jehoiachin  by  Evil-merodach. 

Enlarged  edition  of  Deuteronomy. 

Deuteronomistic  redaction  of  Judges  and  Kings. 
550     Lamentations. 

The  Holiness  Code  (Lev.  n,  17-26). 
539     Cyrus  takes  possession  of  Babylon. 
521     Darius  I. 

Haggai  and  Zechariah  (1-8). 
516     The  second  Temple  dedicated. 
450     Malachi. 
400     Job. 

Isaiah  40-66. 
385     Mission  of  Nehemiah;  rebuilding  of  the  walls  of  Jerusalem. 

The  Priestly  narrative  of  the  Pentateuch  (P). 

350     Combination  of  the  Priestly  narrative  with  the  older  book  of  the  Law 
and  addition  of  all  extant  priestly  traditions. 

Ruth. 

Joel. 

Isaiah,  24-27. 
333     Alexander  takes  possession  of  Syria. 


APPENDIX  501 

B.  c. 

320     Ptolemy  I  captures  Jerusalem. 
250     Chronicics. 

Zechariah,  0-14. 

The  Song  of  Songs. 

Jonah. 

The  nucleus  of  the  Book  of  Proverbs. 
200     Book  of  Jesus  ben  Sira. 

The  Book  of  Proverbs  completed. 
1 80     Eccleslastes. 

175     Accession  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 
1 68     Desecration  of  the  Temple. 
167     Revolt  of  the  Maccabees. 
165     The  Book  of  Daniel. 

Dedication  of  the  Temple. 
161     Jonathan  succeeds  Judas. 

Translation  of  the  Pentateuch  into  Greek  in  Alexandria. 
153     Jonathan  appointed  high-priest  by  Demetrius. 

142     Simon  succeeds  Jonathan  and  is  appointed  high-priest  and  prince  by 
the  Jewish  people. 

Final  redaction  ot  the  Book  of  Psalms. 
134    John  Hyrcanus. 

Active  opposition  of  the  Pharisaic  party  to  the  Maccabean  house. 

The  First  Book  of  Maccabees. 
103     Alexander  Jannaeus. 

The  Book  of  Enoch. 
ioo    The  Book  of  Esther. 

The  Book  of  Judith. 

The  Second  Book  of  Maccabees. 

The  Book  of  Jubilees. 
63     Pompey  in  Syria. 

The  Psalms  of  Solomon. 

40    Herod  appointed  King  of  Judea  by  the  Roman  Senate 
37     Herod  in  possession  of  Jerusalem. 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS 


PACE 

Aaron  and  his  Sons 403 

Abimelech 97 

Abner  and  David 139 

Abraham 5° 

Absalom's  Revolt 148 

Achish,  King  of  Gath 131 

Adonijah 152 

Adullam 135 

Ahab 187 

Ahab  and  Jezebel 187 

Ahab  and  Judah 188 

Ahaz 234 

Ahaz  and  Assyria 227 

Ahaz  besieged 235 

Ahaz  visits  Tiglath-pileser 227 

Alexander  Balas 467 

Alexander  Jannaeus 482 

Alexander,  Legend  of 413 

Alexander  the  Great 413 

Alexandra,  Queen 491 

Alexandria,  Jews  in 415 

Alkimus,  High-priest 463 

Altar 167 

Amalekites  and  David 132 

Amaziah 207 

Amaziah  and  Jehoash 207 

Ammonite  Invasion 114 

Amon,  King  of  Judah 259 

Amorites,  Conflict  with 76 

Amos 211 

Angels 14.  19 

Angels,  Doctrine  of 355 

Angels,  Fall  of  the 484 

Angels  in  the  Book  of  Daniel ..  457 
Angels  in  the  Book  of  Jubilees.  489 

Animal  Worship 269 

Anointing  of  Saul 109 

Anthropomorphism 18 

Antiochus  the  Great 416 

Antiochus    III 441 

Antiochus  IV,  Accession  of....  442 
Antiochus  IV  and  Egypt... 442,  444 
Antiochus  IV  at  Jerusalem  ....  444 

Antiochus  IV,  Death  of 461 

Antk  :hus  V 461 

Antiochus  VI 468 

Antiochus  VII 478 


PAGE 

Antipater 493 

Apocalypses 451 

Apocalyptic  Expectation 411 

Apollonius,  Defeat  of 449 

Aristeas,  Letter  of 476 

Aristobulus  1 482 

Aristobulus  II 492 

Ark,  The 71 

Ark,  Capture  of  the 112 

Ark  brought  to  Jerusalem,  The.    14-1. 

Ark  of  Yahweh,  The in 

Artaxerxes 382 

Artaxerxes,  Decree  of 390 

Artaxerxes,  Letter  to 350 

Artaxerxes  Ochus 410 

Asa's  Alliance  with  Syria 186 

Assassination 89 

Ashurbanipal 258 

Assideans,  The 448 

Assyria 194 

Assyrian  Policy,  The 225 

Athaliah's  Usurpation 203 

Atonement,  Day  of 405 

Baal  and  Yahweh 171,  222 

Baal  in  Israel 172 

Baal  Perazim . .  135 

Baal,  The  Tyrian 189 

Baasha 183 

Babylon  captured  by  Cyrus....  342 

Babylonian   Conceptions 18 

Babylonian  Flood-story 28 

Babylonian   Influence 23 

Bacchides 463 

Barak 92 

Baruch,  Jeremiah's  Scribe 289 

Bel  and  the  Dragon 487 

Belshazzar 456 

Benhadad  and  Ahab 188 

Benjamin,  War  upon 107 

Berossus 28 

Bethel 45,  220 

Bethel  and  Dan 180 

Beth-horon,  Battle  of 82 

Beth-shemesh 113 

Beth-zacharias,  Battle  of 462 

Blessing  of  Jacob 41,  175 


503 


504 


INDEX    OF   SUBJECTS 


PAGE 

Blood,  Efficacy  of 325 

Blood  Revenge 89,  1 74 

Body-guard,   The 203 

Book  of  Instruction,  The 260 

Bulls,  Golden 181 

Caesar  and  the  Jews  ..........  494 

Cain „ 23 

Cain's  Genealogy 23 

Caleb 84 

Calves,  The  Golden 180 

Canaan  before  the  Conquest...  77 

Canaan,  Conquest  of 73 

Canaanite  Peoples 74 

Canaanite  Religion 190 

Canaanites  and  Israelites 172 

Canaanites,  Strength  of  the....  86 

Captivity  of  Israel 229 

Carchemish,  Battle  of 282 

Chasidim,  The 448,  464 

Chasidim,  Programme  of  the..  456 

Chedorlaomer 37 

Cherubim,  The 167,  303 

Chronicler,  Method  of  the....  345 

Chronicles,  Books  of 4,  419 

Chronology 21,  202 

Chronology  of  the  Flood 32 

Chronology  of  Hezekiah's  Reign  238 

Circumcision 66 

Circumcision  in  the  Exile 328 

City,  Importance  of  the  Greek.  417 

Concubinage 174 

Confusion  of  Tongues,  The 13 

Conquest,  Earliest  Account  of 

the 83 

Corruption  of  Judah 253 

Corvee,  The 157 

Covenant  between  Israel  and 

Yahweh 69,  70 

Covenant,  Book  of  the 174 

Covenant  in  Deuteronomy 268 

Covenant  of  Josiah 262 

Covenant  with  Noah,  The 33 

Covenants  between  Israel  and 

Canaanites 79 

Creation,  Babylonian  Account  of  18 

Creation,  P's  Account 16 

Creation  Story,  The 13 

Criticism,  Higher 2 

Cyrus,  Career  of 341 

Cyrus,  his  Proclamation 344 

Damascus  and  Assyria 207 

Damascus,  Fall  of 228 

Dan  and  Bethel 180 

Daniel,  The  Book  of 451 


PAGE 

Danites,  The 85 

Darius,  Letter  to 35 1 

David  and  Abner 139 

David  at   Hebron 133 

David,  Introduction  of ........   122 

David  made  King 142 

David  and  Michal 123,  145 

David  and  Nabal 130 

David  an  Outlaw 129 

David,  Saul '  s  Jealousy  of 123 

David's  Character 154 

David's  Court 147 

David's  Foreign  Wars 146 

Day  of  Yahweh,  The 216 

Dead  Sea 44 

Deborah 92 

Decalogue,  The   Earliest 68 

Decalogue  of  J 210 

Dedication,  The  Feast  of 460 

Dedication  of  the  Temple 459 

Deluge,   The 26 

Deluge  Stories 30 

Demetrius,  King  of  Syria 463 

Deportations,  The  Assyrian .   226 

Deportation,  The  First 285,  286 

Desecration  of  the  Temple 444 

Deuteronomic  Literature 332 

Deuteronomist's  Ideal,  The...  271 
Deuteronomy  and  the  Prophets.  273 
Deuteronomy,  Influence  of....  264 

Deuteronomy,  Purpose  of.. 266 

Deuteronomy,  Supplements  to.  332 

Dinah,  The  Story  of 41 

Dirge  over  Abner 141 

Dispersion  of  Jews,  The 498 

Divorce  of  Gentile  Wives 394 

Dry  Bones,  Ezekiel's  Vision  of.   318 

E,  Work  of 219 

Ecclesiastes 436 

Eden 24 

Edom  conquered  by  Amaziah . .   207 

Edom  and  Israel 41 

Edom,  Revolt  of 170 

Egypt  and  Antiochus 442,  444 

Egypt  and  Assyria 279 

Egypt  and  Hezekiah 247 

Egypt  and  Israel 227 

Egypt  and  Judah 242 

Egypt,  Sojourn  in 54 

Ehud 90 

Ekron's  Revolt 242 

El  Amarna  Tablets,  The 36,  76 

Elijah 190.  191 

Elijah  at  Mount  Carmel 192 

Elijah  and  Jehu 193 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS 


$05 


PACK 

Elijah,  Memoirs  of 209 

Elisha's  Death 206 

Eli's  Sons  in 

Elohist,  The 219 

Eltekeh,  Battle  of 243 

Enoch,  The  Book  of 483 

En  Rogel 152 

Ephod,  Gideon's 96 

Ephraim's   Revolt 178 

Epicureanism 438 

Esau  a  Clan  Name 39 

Esarhaddon  and  Egypt 258 

Esther,  The  Book  of 485 

Evil-merodach   327 

Exclusiveness,  Postexilic 399 

Exiles'  Condition  in  Babylonia.  301 

Exiles,  Expectations  of  the .   294 

Exodus,  Narrative  of 52 

Ezekiel 302 

Ezekiel's  Call 302 

Ezekiel,  his  Character 326 

Ezekiel's  Individualism 311 

Ezekiel's  Symbols 304 

Ezekiel's  Theory  of  the  Divine 

Justice 306 

Ezra  and  Nehemiah 345 

Ezra,  Story  of  his  Mission....  390 

Fall  of  Man,  The 16 

Famine  in  David's  Time  ......    150 

Fasting 119 

Feast  of  Dedication 460 

Festivals 67 

Flood,  The 26 

Gabriel,  The  Angel 457 

Gath,  David  subject  to 131 

Gedaliah,  Babylonian  Governor  297 

Genealogies 2O 

Gentile  Customs  opposed 490 

Gibeah  of  Benjamin 107 

Gibeon,  Battle  of 138 

Gibeonites,  The 150 

Gideon  . .  .• 95 

Gihon 153 

Gilboa,  Battle  of 127 

Gilead,  The  Jews  in 460 

Gymnasium  in  Jerusalem 443 

God's  Choice  of  Israel 373 

Gog,  Ezekiel's  Vision  of 316 

Gog  and  Magog 316 

Goliath 135 

Gorgias,  Defeat  of 450 

Goshen 6l 

Greek  Culture 443 

Greek  Influence  in  Palestine...  417 


PAGE 

Greek  Religion 418 

Greek  Version,  The 476 

Habakkuk,  The  Book  of 285 

Haggai,  his  Preaching 353 

Haggai  and  Zechariah 349 

Hair,  Samson's 103 

Hammurabi,  Laws  of 173 

Heathenism  in  Judah 262 

Hebron 133 

Hellenising  Influences 443 

Herod 494 

Herod  made  King 495 

Hezekiah  and  Egypt 247 

Hezekiah  and  Sennacherib  ....   243 

Hezekiah's  Accession 238 

Hezekiah's  Reforms 239 

Higher  Criticism,  The 2 

High-places  Destroyed 262 

High-priesthood,  The 467 

H  iram  and  Solomon 159 

H  istorical  Books 3 

History,  The  Hebrew  Scheme  of     it 

Holiness  Code,  The 333 

Holiness  of  Yahweh..... 322 

Horeb,  Elijah  at 192 

Horeb  and  Sinai 64 

Hosea  and  Amos 222 

Hosea  and  the  Monarchy 225 

Hosea,  The  Book  of 221 

Hoshea,  King  of  Israel 228 

Human  Sacrifice 100,  235 

Hyrcanus  II 491 

Idolatry  after  the  Exile 378 

Idolatry  under  Manasseh 256 

Idolatry  in  the  Temple 305 

Idolatry,  Suppression  of 266 

Idols,  Contempt  of 371 

Idols  in  the  Temple 269 

Isaiah  and  Sennacherib 246 

Isaiah's  Faith 251 

Isaiah's  Politics 236 

Ishbaal 128,  136 

Israel,  Early  Mention 75 

Israel,  Lack  of  Unity  in 88 

Israel  and  the  Canaanites 99 

Israel's  Disunion 106 

Israel's  Foreign  Policy 224 

Israel's  Prophetic  Mission 371 

Israel's  Restoration 318 

J,  The  Book  of 14,  210 

Jabesh  Gilead 114,  128 

Jachin  and  Boaz 165 

Jacob 43 


5d6 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS 


PAGE 

Jacob,  The  Name  of  a  People..  38 

J  acob's  Sons 40 

Jael  and  Sisera 93 

Jason  and  Onias 443 

Jealousy  Ordeal,  The 405 

Jehoahaz  of  Israel 206 

Jehoahaz  of  Judah 281 

Jehoash  of  Israel 206 

Jehoash  and  Amaziah 207 

Jehoash's  Coronation 204 

Jehoiachin  carried  captive 284 

Jehoiakim 28 1 

Jehoshaphat 197 

Jehu  anointed 198 

Jehu  and  Assyria 201 

Jehu's     suppression     of     Baal- 
worship  200 

Jephthah   99 

Jephthah's  Daughter 100 

Jeremiah,  Writing  of  his  Book.  289 

Jeremiah  and  the  Scythians 275 

Jeremiah  and  Zedekiah 296 

Jeremiah  arrested 283 

Jeremiah  imprisoned 295 

Jeremiah's  Character 286 

Jeremiah's  Pessimism 278 

Jeroboam  ben  Nebat 171,  177 

Jeroboam's  Reign 180 

Jeroboam's    Revolt 1 78 

Jeroboam  II 208 

Jerusalem,  Affection  for 473 

Jerusalem  captured  by  David  ..  136 

Jerusalem,  Disorders  in 443 

Jerusalem    invested    by    Nebu- 
chadrezzar    294 

Jerusalem,    Rebuilding    of    the 

Wall 385 

Jerusalem  taken  by  Jehoash 207 

Jerusalem's  Sin 307 

Jews,  Independence  of  the 468 

Jezebel 187 

Jezebel's  Death 200 

Joab  and  Abner 140 

Job,  The  Book  of 363 

Joel,  Book  of 408 

John  Hyrcanus 478 

Jonadab  ben  Rechab 191,  291 

Jonah,  The  Book  of 425 

Jonathan 116 

Jonathan's  Transgression 120 

Jonathan  Maccabeus 466 

Joram  at  Jezreel 196 

Joshua 80 

Joshua  the  Chief  Priest 356 

Josiah's   Accession 260 

Josiah,  Character  of 280 


PAGE 

Josiah's  Reforms 265 

Josiah  Slain 279 

Jotham 233 

Jubilees,  Book  of 6,  488 

Judah 94 

Judaism,  Rise  of 389 

Judas  Maccabeus 449 

Judas  Maccabeus,  Death  of 465 

Judges,  Book  of 6,  87 

Judges,  Nature  of  their  Office..  88 

Judgment  of  the  Gentiles 409 

Justice,  Ezekiel's  Theory  of 311 

Justice,  Theory  of  the  Divine..  363 

Kadesh 62,  69 

Karkar,  Battle  of 195 

Keilah,  David  at 135 

Kenites,  The 93 

Kingdom  of  God,  The 379 

Koheleth 436 

Korah,  The  Story  of 404 

Lamech 24 

Lamentations,  The  Book  of 340 

Lavers  in  the  Temple 166 

Law,   Embodiment  of  Wisdom 

in  the 429 

Law,  Introduction  of  the 400 

Law  of  the  Hebrews 1 74 

Legalism,  First  Stage  of 274 

Leontopolis,  Temple  at 446 

Levi,  Choice  of 403 

Levites,  The 5 

Levites,  Ezekiel's  Regulations.  324 

Lions,  Ravages  of 231 

Literature,  Early 104 

Lot,  The  Sacred 120 

Lot,  The  Story  of 47 

Lysias,  Defeat  of 451 

Maccabean  Dynasty  established  470 

Maccabean  Success 459 

Maccabees,  The 449 

Maccabees,  First  Book  of 483 

Maccabees,  Second  Book  of...  487 

Ma^eba,  The 45,  220,  267 

Mahanaim 128 

Malachi,  Book  of 360 

Manasseh,  King  of  Judah 254 

Manetho 55 

Mattathias,  Revolt  of 448 

Media  and  Nineveh 276 

Megiddo,  Battle  of 279 

Men  ahem  of  Israel 226 

Menelaus 444 

Mephibosheth 150 

Meribbaal 150 


INDEX   OF  SUBJECTS 


507 


PACK 

Meribah 62 

Merodach-baladan 241 

Merom,  Battle  of 82 

Mesha  of  Moab 197 

Messiah  in  the  Book  of  Enoch, 

The 483 

Messiah,  Zerubbabel  the 357 

Messianic  Expectation 475,  491 

Messianic  Faith,  Israel's 252 

Messianic   Hope,  The ...338,  424 

Messianic  Hope,   Zechariah's. .  358 

Messianic  King,  The 320 

Micah,  The  Prophet 252 

Micaiah 195 

Michal  and   David 123,  145 

Michal  returned 139 

Michmash,  Battle  of 117 

Midianite  Invasion 95 

Midrash 6 

Migrations 73 

Mizpah 450 

Moabite  Revolt,  The 196 

Moloch 263 

Monarchy,  Rise  of  the 114 

Moses 56 

Moses,  Blessing  of 209 

Moses,  The  Song  of 291 

Murder,  Punishment  of 174 

Nabal  and  David 130 

Nabonidus 342 

Nabopolassar 277 

Naboth 187 

Nahash,  the  Ammonite 114 

Nahum,  Book  of 277 

Nazirite,  The 103 

Nehemiah 382 

Nehemiah,  Importance  of 411 

Nebiim 109 

Nebuchadrezzar  besieges   Jeru- 
salem    294 

Nebuchadrezzar,  Death  of 327 

Nebuchadrezzar  in  Palestine —  283 

Nebuchadrezzar  at  Riblah 284 

Nehushtan 239 

Nicanor,  Defeat  of 464 

Nineveh,  Fall  of 277 

Noah 27 

Nob,  Destruction  of 125 

Nomad  Life 43 

Obed-edom 144 

Omri 183 

Omri,  The    House  of 184 

Onias,  High-priest 443 

Othniel 89 


PAGE 
P 12 

P's  Flood-story 31 

Palestine,  Situation  of 73 

Paneas,  Battle   of 441 

Parthians  in  Syria,  The 495 

Passover,  The 67 

Passover,  Josiah's 267 

Patriarchs,   History  of  the 35 

Patriarchal  Period,  The 48 

Pekah  invades  Judah 233 

Pharaoh  Hophra 295 

Pharaoh  Necho 279 

Pharisees,  Rise  of  the 479 

Philistines,  The 102 

Philistine  Campaigns,  David's.  136 

Philistine    Power,  The 114 

Philistine    Supremacy 106 

Plagues,  The 57 

Plague  in  David's  Time,  The..  151 

Pompey  the  Great 492 

Popular  Assembly,  The  Jewish.  468 

Priest-code,  The 4 

Priestly  Writer,  The n,  35,  400 

Priests,  Ezekiel's  Regulations  for  323 

Priests,  Income  of 205 

Prophet,  The no 

Prophetic  Canon,  The 408 

Prophetic  Guilds,  The 193 

Proverbs,  The  Book  of 432 

Psalms,  The  Book  of 471 

Psalms  of  Solomon 496 

Ptolemy  I  at  Jerusalem 415 

Purim,  Feast  of 485 

Qedeshim,  The 262 

Queen  of  Heaven,  Worshipof  the  298 

Rabshakeh  before  Jerusalem ...  244 

Ramoth  Gilead 195 

Reaction  under  Manasseh 255 

Rechabites,  The 291 

Redeemer  of  Israel,  The 373 

Red  Sea,  Crossing  of  the 60 

Rehoboam  at  Shechem 1 77 

Rephaim,  Valley  of 135 

Restoration,  Ezekiel's  Vision  of 

the 314 

Resurrection,  Doctrine  of  the. .  484 
Return,  Chronicler's  Theory  of 

the 346 

Revolt  of  the  Ten  Tribes 178 

Rezin  of  Damascus 226 

Rezon  of  Damascus 171 

Ritual,  Jeremiah's  Attitude  — .  288 
Ritual,  Popular  Conception  of..  213 
Rizpah 138 


508 


INDEX   OF    SUBJECTS 


PAGE 

Rizpah's   Devotion 150 

Romans,  Antiochus  IV  and  the .  <\<\<\ 

Romans  in   Syria,  The 493 

Ruth,  The  Book  of 398 

Sabbath,  The 20,  329 

Sacred  Lot,  The 120 

Sacred  Trees 46 

Sacrifice,  Prophetic  View  of. ...  214 

Sadducees,  The 480 

Sagas,  Nature  of 42 

Samaria,  Fall  of 229 

Samaritan  Text 22 

Samaritan,   Settlers,  The 231 

Samaritan  Schism,  The 399 

Samson 101 

Samuel 108 

Samuel,  Books  of 7 

Samuel  as  Judge Ill 

Sanballat 384 

Sanctuaries,  Israelite 46 

Sanhedrin,  The 481 

Sanhedrin,  Herod  and  the 494 

Sargon 229 

Sargon's  Invasion  of  Philistia..  242 

Satan 356 

Satan  in  the  Book  of  Job 365 

Saul's    Character 127 

Saul's    Death 133 

Saul  and  Samuel 108 

Saul  and  the  Gibeonites 140 

Saul  and  the  Prophets no 

Saul  in  David's  Power 131 

Saul's  Jealousy  of  David ......    123 

Saul's  Later  Years 126 

Saul's  Mania 122 

Saul's  Vow 119 

Scribes,  Importance  of  the  ....  436 

Scribes,  The 430,  497 

Scythian  Invasion,  The 275 

Sea,  The  Molten 166 

Seleucus,    Kingdom  of 416 

Sennacherib's    Invasion 243 

Sennacherib's    Retreat 244 

Serpent,  The 13 

Serpent,  The  Copper 239 

Serpent  Worship 240 

Seth,  Genealogy  of 20 

Seventy  Weeks  of  Daniel . .   455 

Sexual  Life,  Religion  and  the..  336 

Shallum 219 

Shalmaneser  II 194 

Shalmaneser  IV 228 

Sheba's    Revolt 149 

Shechem,  Revolt  of 98 

Shiloh 112 

Shimei 149 


PAGE 

Shishak's    Invasion 184 

Simon  Maccabeus 468 

Simon  Maccabeus,  Murder  of. .  478 

Sinai 62ff 

Sin-offerings 325,  407 

Sirach 427 

Sisera 91 

Slavery 174 

So,  King  of  Egypt 228 

Sodom,  Destruction  of 45.48 

Solomon,  Psalms  of..... 496 

Solomon's  Buildings 162 

Solomon's    Coronation 153 

Solomon's  Harem 160 

Solomon's  Palace 162 

Solomon's  Policy 156 

Solomon's  Wealth 159 

Solomon's  Wisdom. ..........  160 

Song  of   Moses,  The 291 

Song  of  Songs 426 

Sons  of  God 14 

Spirit  of  Yahweh 103 

Sufferings,  Meaning  of  Israel's.  373 

Swine,  Uncleanness  of... 334 

Synagogue,  The 434 

Syncretism 190 

Syncretism,  Samaritan 231 

Syncretism  of  Solomon 1 69 

Syria  and  Asa 186 

Syrian  Deluge  Story 30 

Tabernacle,  The 71 

Tabernacle,  Account  of  the ....  402 

Taboo 334 

Talio 174 

Tammuz  in  the  Temple 306 

Tatnai,  Governor  of  Syria 352 

Temple,  The i6iff 

Temple,  Changes  in  the 236 

Temple,  Chronicler's  Estimate  of 

the 422 

Temple  Desecrated 444 

Temple  of  Ezekiel,  The 321 

Temple,  Haggai's  Exhortation.  349 

Temple,  Importance  of  the....  271 

Temple  Income,  The 204 

Temple,  Rededication  of  the...  459 

Temple  Servants 170 

Temple  Service,  Ben  Sira's  De- 
scription   431 

Ten  Tribes,  The 230 

Teraphim,   The 124 

Theophanies 46 

Tibni 184 

Tiglath-pileser  III 225 

Tiglath-pileser  at  Damascus...  236 

Tribal  Names 38 


INDEX   OF  SUBJECTS 


509 


PAGE 

Tribal  Organization,  The 173 

Tribes  of  Israel,  The 94 

Trypho 468 

Trypho  proclaims  himself  King  468 

Unity  of  God 270 

Unity  of  the  Sanctuary 270 

Urim  and  Thummim 121 

Uzzah,  Death  of 144 

Uzziah 232 

Vicarious  Suffering 374 

Wilderness  of  Judah 129 

Wilderness  Sojourn,  The 6r 

Wilderness  Wandering 65 

Wisdom  Literature,  The 427 

Wisdom,  Praise  of 428 

Woman,  Sacredness  of 337 


PAGE 
Yahweh,  God  of  the  Desert. 68,  190 

Yahweh,  God  of  Israel 104 

Yahweh  a  jealous  God 266 

Yahweh  a  God  of  War 94 

Yahweh,    God    of    the    Whole 

Earth 213 

Yahweh,  Wrath  of 212 

Yahwist,  Work  of  the 210 

Zadok,  Family  of 324 

Zechariah  of  Israel 226 

Zechariah,    his  Visions 354 

Zedekiah  and  Jeremiah 296 

Zedekiah  captured 296 

Zedekiah,  King  of  Judah 292 

Zephaniah,  The  Book  of 276 

Zerubbabel 351 

Ziklag 132 

Zimri 183 


INDEX   OF   SCRIPTURE   PASSAGES 


GENESIS. 

PAGE 

NUMBERS. 

PAGE 

i  SAMUEL  —  Cont'd. 

2,   10-15  

4,  17-24  
4.  23f  

24 
20 
24 

3.5-13  
5,  "-31  
7  

404 
406 
408 

15  

19,  18-24  

21,  4-6  

"5 

109 

337 

5,  1-32  

2O 

10,35  

112 

f 

6,  1-4  

H 

11,24-30  

70 

23  

125 
133 

6,  5  

27 

19  

404 

24  

131 

8,  6  

27 

20,1-13  

404 

26 

10  

38 

21,1-3  

84 

27  

i|a 

n,  1-9  

13 

21,4-9  

239 

14.  

37 
250 

21,  14  
21,27-30  

76 
76 

2  SAMUEL. 

18,23-33  

21     ............. 

37 

2,8-3,39  

141 

25,  1-6  

DEUTERONOMY. 

2-4  

134 

25,  12-17  
27.  39*  

39 

6,4  

12,8       .. 

270 
266 

3.6-39  
7  

139 
H5 

28  

45 
42 
220 
39 
175 

13  

15,  12-18  

16,1-8  

18,  1-8  
18,6  
18,  10  
20,  16-18  

267 
294 
267 

323 
266 
267 
269 

7  
9  
ii  
15,  1-6  
16  

20,  23-26  

21,  4-6  

340 
150 
148 
148 
149 
1  47 
150 

34   
35.  20  
36  

49  40, 

EXODUS. 

3-9-25  

53 

26,  17  

268 

i  KINGS. 

3.H  

57 

28  

265 

4,  24-26  
6,  2-9  

67 

53 

32  
33  

291 
209 

i  and  2  

153 

8,  26  
H.i-3  

59 
60 

33.2  

62 

4  

5.27-30  

80 

158 

17,  1-8  

62 

JUDGES. 

,  O  

20-23  
23,  12-19  

174 
69 

i  
5  

86 
40 

9,28  

10  28 

l& 
159 
1  60 

23.29  
33.7  
33.  14  
34  68, 
35-40  

231 
402 
68 

210 
403 

ii,  12-28  
14,6  
18  
19  

IOI 

103 
85 
45 

II,  14-22  -. 

II,  23-25  

12   
12,    25-33  

14,    23f  

170 
171 

179 
181 
18? 

LEVITICUS. 

i  SAMUEL. 
2,  12-17  

in 

14,    25-28  
15,     M-I3  

185 
185 

10,  1-5  

403 

5-7  

"3 

15,  16-32  

1  86 

ii  

-il-i 

7,  13  

in 

15,  27  

183 

1  6...             ..403, 

4OC 

10,  9-1  •?.  . 

109 

16,  8-10  

183 

17,26  

333 

II  

116 

18  

IQ2 

18,6-30  

335 

I3and  14  

1  20 

20,  35-43  

193 

21-22  

337 

14,36-45  

121 

21,    19  

1  88 

26,33  

338 

14.47  

126 

22,  43  

197 

5*0- 

INDEX   OF  SCRIPTURE   PASSAGES 


2  KINGS. 

NEHEMIAH  —  Confd. 

ISAIAH  —  Con  tin  ueJ. 

PAGE 

PAGE 

PAGE 

3.26  

100 

6,  1-14  

388 

39  

242 

8,12  

201 

7  

347 

40-66  

371 

198 

777 

II,  4-20  

204 

13  

399 

41,6,7  

372 

12,  4-16  

205 

41,  21-23  

372 

12,    l8  

206 

JOB. 

42,  i-4  

377 

13.  3  
14,  1-14  

14,   22  
M.   25  

15,  16  

206 
208 
232 
208 
219 

7,  12-21  
9.  2-5  
19.  23-27  
38  

367 
368 
369 
370 

45-  14  
46,  1-4  
49,  1-6  
49,  14-50,3  
5°,  4-6  

374 
372 
375 
373 

475 

15-  37  

233 

PSALMS. 

53  

376 

16,  3  

235 

55,  5  

17S 

16,  7  

227 

35.  "-IS  

472 

56,  6  

379 

16,  9  
16,  18  

228 
236 

42  
44  

4;3 

473 

56,  9  
61  

378 
379 

17.  6  
17.  24  

229 
230 

PROVERBS. 

63,  1-6  

379 

17,  24-34  
18  
18,  i  

231 
244 
238 

8,  22-27  

10-22  

433 
432 

JEREMIAH. 

2,   I-II  

287 

-e. 

18.  4  
18.  7  
18,  13  
18,  13-16  
20,  12-19  

241 
239 
243 
242 

ECCLESIASTES. 

3,  1-9  
3,  16-21  
8,  16-18  

438 
438 
437 

3,  i~5  
4,  5-26  
7,  4-iS  
7.  5-7  
7.  17  

7     22 

207 
276 
278 
288 
269 
?88 

21,  2-6  
21,    16  

22,   3-13  
23  

254 
257 
260 
262 

ISAIAH. 
i,  5  

2,  6  

250 
233 

8,  8  

ll.  15  
13,  18-20  

273 
288 
291 

23,   29  

23.  33  
24,  i  

280 
282 
283 

2,   2-5  
2,    12-17  

3.  16-24  
6.9  

35H 
234 

255 

2SI 

17,  19-27  
18  

22,  13-19  
22,   24-30  

331 
290 

284 

Z4>  7  

3 

6,  13  

2SI 

27   

293 

i  CHRONICLES. 

7  and8  

29    

294 

9.  7-9  

2.U 

34,  8-22  

295 

27  

421 

io,  5-7  

249 

35  

291 

2  CHRONICLES. 

10,  28-32  
11,  1-8  

248 

35,  i-"  
36  

191 
289 

21,    12-20  

421 

13  and  14  

343 

44  

298 

33,  »-i9  

258 

14,  28-32  

241 

5L  59  

294 

18  

247 

52,  28-30  

297 

EZRA. 

20   

242 

i,  1-4  

344 

21,    I-IO  

343 

EZEKIEL. 

2        ............ 

147 

22                             ... 

24.Q 

7,    1-7.  .  . 

?O4. 

4,   12  

348 

24-27  

410 

3.  15-21  

313 

5.  3-6,14  

351 

25,  6-8  

4" 

4,  1-7  

304 

7,  12-26  

391 

28,  1-4  

2.U 

5,  1-4  

301 

9  and  10  

394 

28,  17  

248 

8,  9-12  

28,  28f  

246 

12,   1-20  

30S 

NEHEMIAH. 

29  

248 

II,    I-I3  

307 

i,  9  

383 

30,  i-5  

247 

14.    U  

764 

4,  6  

386 

30,  15  

248 

14,   20-23  

310 

5,  1-13  

387 

34  and  35  

379 

15.  i-5  

307 

5,  M-I9  

387 

36  

244 

16  

3°8 

512 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE   PASSAGES 


EZEKIEL  —  Continued. 

HOSEA. 

HAGGAI. 

PAGE 

PAGE 

] 

?«.GE 

17  

.    308 

i,  2-9  

.    221 

I,  1-4  

349 

18  

.    310 

2,5  

.    222 

2,6  

354 

19  

.    108 

5.  15-6,  4  

.    224 

19,  3-5  

.    282 

13,  ii  

•    225 

ZECHARIAH. 

21,  18-23  

-    309 

14,  2-7  

.    223 

1-8  

349 

23  

.    308 

i,  7-2,  5  

23,   10-12  

-    330 

AMOS. 

3,  6  

357 

24,   15-27  

33,  1-16  

•    309 
-    313 

i,  3  
I  and  2  , 

.    2O2 

.  216 

5  
6,  ii  

358 

357 

34  
34,  23  

34,  26-30  

315 
.    320 

•    3H 

3,  2  
5,  15  
5,  18-20  

213 

217 

,  216 

8,  20-23  
9-14  

358 
423 

35  
36,  26  
37,  i-io  
38,8  
38,  16  
39,  8-15  
40-48  

-    315 
•    319 
-    318 
.    316 
-    317 
•    317 
.    321 

5,  21  
6,  1-6  
6,13  
7,  9  
8,  i  

9,  "-IS  

214 

215 
208 

211 
212 
217 

MALACHI. 

I,  2  

2,  10-16  
3,  2-5  
3,  8-10  
3,  13-15  

361 
361 
361 
362 
362 

43,  7  

44,  6-15  

.    322 
•    323 

MlCAH. 

ECCLESIASTICUS. 

45,  13-17  

.    320 

2,  II  

253 

4,  "-15  

429 

45,  17-20  
46,  13-16  
47,  i-"  

DANIEL. 

•    325 
•    320 
.    326 

3,  2  
3,  5  and  12  

4,  1-4  
6,  6-8  

253 
253 
358 
257 

24,  1-6  
24.  8-23  
38,  24-39,  ii.... 
50,  18-21  

429 
429 
436 
43i 

7,  7  

.    4H 

NAHUM. 

i  MACCABEES. 

•  454 

i,  21-24  

444 

8,  5-8  

.  414 

I,  2  and  3  

278 

2,  42  

448 

8,  14  , 

•  454 

2  and  3  

277 

5,  i-5  

460 

10  , 

4^2 

c    c  C—  68 

161 

ii  , 

•  452 
446 

ZEPHANIAH. 

6,8-13  

9>  5-19  

461 

465 

13,  7-    

454 

3,  i-7  

276 

14,  27-4*  

470 

The  International 

Theological  Library 


ARRANGEMENT  OF  VOLUMES  AND  AUTHORS 


THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA.  By  CHARLES  A.  BRIGGS,  D.D., 
D.Litt.,  sometime  Professor  of  Theological  Encyclopaedia  and  Symbolics, 
Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 

AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  LITERATURE  Or  THE  OLD  TESTA- 
MENT. By  S.  R.  DRIVER,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  sometime  Regius  Professor  of 
Hebrew  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford. 

[Revised  and  Enlarged  Edition. 

CANON  AND  TEXT  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  By  the  Rev.  JOHN 
SKINNER,  D.D.,  Principal  and  Professor  of  Old  Testament  Language  ana  Lit- 
erature, College  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  England,  Cambridge,  England, 
and  the  Rev.  OWEN  WHTTEHOUSE,  B.A.,  Principal  and  Professor  of  Hebrew, 
Chestnut  College,  Cambridge,  England. 

OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY.  By  HENRY  PRESERVED  SlDTH,  D.D.. 
sometime  Librarian,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York.  [Kow  Ready. 

THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  By  A.  B.  DAVIDSON,  D.D., 
LL.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  Hebrew,  New  College,  Edinburgh. 

[.You-  Ready. 

AN    INTRODUCTION   TO  THE   LITERATURE  OF  THE   NEW  TESTA 

WENT.  By  Rev.  JAMES  MOFFATT,  D.D.,  D.LITT.,  Hon.  M.A.,  Professor  of 
Church  History,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York.  [Revised  Edition. 

CANON  AND  TEXT  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  By  CASPAR  REN£ 
GREGORY,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  New  Testament  Exegesis  in 
the  University  of  Leipzig.  [Now  Ready. 


THE  INTERNATIONAL  THEOLOGICAL  LIBRARY 

A    HISTORY    OF    CHRISTIANITY    IN     THE    APOSTOLIC    AGE.      By 

ARTHUR  C.  McGlFFERT,  D.D.,  former  President  Union  Theological  Sem- 
inary, New  York.  [Now  Ready. 

CONTEMPORARY     HISTORY    OF     THE     NEW    TESTAMENT.        By 

FRANK  C.  PORTER,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Biblical  Theology,  Yale  University, 
New  Haven,  Conn. 

THEOLOGY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  By  GEORGE  B.  STEVENS, 
D.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology,  Yale  University,  New 
Haven,  Conn.  [Now  Ready. 

BIBLICAL  ARCHAEOLOGY.  By  G.  BUCHANAN  GRAY,  D.D.,  Professor 
of  Hebrew,  Mansfield  College,  Oxford. 

THE  ANCIENT  CATHOLIC  CHURCH.  By  ROBERT  RAINEY,  D.D., 
LL.D.,  sometime  Principal  of  New  College,  Edinburgh.  [Now  Ready. 

THE  LATIN   CHURCH.  IN  THE   MIDDLfc  ,AGES.      By  ANDRE  LAGARDE. 

[Now  Ready. 

THE  GREEK  AND  EASTERN  CHURCHES.  By  W.  F.  ADENEY,  D.D., 
Principal  of  Independent  College,  Manchester.  [Now  Ready. 

THE  REFORMATION  IN  GERMANY.  By  T.  M.  LINDSAY,  D.D.,  Prin- 
cipal of  the  United  Free  College,  Glasgow.  [Now  Ready. 

THE  REFORMATION;  IN  LANDS  BEYOND  GERMANY.  By  T.  M. 
LINDSAY,  D.D.  [Now  Ready. 

THEOLOGICAL  SYMBOLICS.  By  CHARLES  A.  BRIGGS,  D.D.,  D.Litt, 
sometime  Professor  of  Theological  Encyclopaedia  and  Symbolics,  Union 
Theological  Seminary,  New  York.  [Now  Ready. 

HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.  By  G.  P.  FlSHER,  D.D., 
LL.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  Yale  University, 
New  Haven,  Conn.  [Revised  and  Enlarged  Edition. 

CHRISTIAN  INSTITUTIONS.  By  A.  V.  G.  ALLEN,  D.D.,  'sometime 
Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  Protestant  Episcopal  Divinity  School, 
Cambridge,  Mass.  [Now  Ready. 

PHILOSOPHY  OF  RELIGION.  By  GEORGE  GALLOWAY,  D.D.,  Minister 
of  United  Free  Church,  Castle  Douglas,  Scotland.  [Now  Ready. 

HISTORY  OF  RELIGIONS.  I.  China,  Japan,  Egypt,  Babylonia,  Assyria, 
India,  Persia,  Greece,  Rome.  By  GEORGE  F.  MOORE,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Pro- 
fessor in  Harvard  University.  [Now  Ready. 

HISTORY  OF  RELIGIONS.  II.  Judaism,  Christianity,  Mohammedanism. 
By  GEORGE  F.  MOORE,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  in  Harvard  University. 

[Now  Ready. 

APOLOGETICS.  By  A.  B.BRUCE,  D.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  New  Testa- 
ment Exegesis,  Free  Church  College,  Glasgow.  [Revised  and  Enlarged  Edition, 


THE  INTERNATIONAL  THEOLOGICAL  LIBRARY 


THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD.  By  WILLIAM  N.  CLARKE,  D.D., 
sometime  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology,  Hamilton  Theological  Semi- 
nary. [Now  Ready. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  MAN.  By  WILLIAM  P.  PATERSON,  D.D.,  Professor 
of  Divinity,  University  of  Edinburgh. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  PERSON   OF  JESUS  CHRIST.      By    H.    R. 

MACKINTOSH,  Ph.D.,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Theology-,  New  College,  Edinburgh. 

[Now  Ready. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  SALVATION.  By  GEORGE  B.  STE- 
VENS, D.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology,  Yale  University. 

[Now  Ready. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE.  By  WlLLIAM  ADAMS 
BROWN,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology,  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York. 

CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  By  NEWMAN  SMYTH,  D.D.,  sometime  Pastor  of 
Congregational  Church,  New  Haven.  [Revised  and  Enlarged  Edition. 

THE     CHRISTIAN     PASTOR    AND    THE    WORKING    CHURCH.      By 

WASHINGTON  GLADDEN,  D.U.,  bomctime  1'astor  ot  Congregational  Church, 
Columbus,  Ohio.  [Now  Ready. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  PREACHER.  By  A.  E.  GARVIE,  D.D.,  Principal  of 
New  College,  London,  England.  [Now  Ready. 

HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  MISSIONS.  By  CHARLES  HENRY  ROBIN- 
SON, D.D.,  Hon.  Canon  of  Ripon  Cathedral  and  Editorial  Secretary  of  the 
Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts. 

[Now  Ready. 


ARRANGEMENT  OF  VOLUMES  AND  AUTHORS 
THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

GENESIS.  The  Rev.  JOHN  SKINNER,  D.D.,  Principal  and  Professor  of 
Old  Testament  Language  and  Literature,  College  of  Presbyterian  Church 
of  England,  Cambridge,  England.  [Now  Ready. 

EXODUS.  The  Rev.  A.  R.  S.  KENNTEDY,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 
University  of  Edinburgh. 

LEVITICUS.    J.  F.  STENNING,  M.A.,  Fellow  of  Wadham  College,  Oxford. 

NUMBERS.  The  Rev.  G.  BUCHANAN  GRAY,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 
Mansfield  College,  Oxford.  [Now  Ready. 

DEUTERONOMY.  The  Rev.  S.  R.  DRIVER,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  sometime 
Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Oxford.  [Now  Ready. 

JOSHUA.  The  Rev.  GEORGE  ADAM  SMITH,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Principal  of  the 
University  of  Aberdeen. 

JUDGES.  The  Rev.  GEORGE  F.  MOORE,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  The- 
ology, Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  [Now  Ready. 

SAMUEL.  The  Rev.  H.  P.  SMITH,  D.D.,  sometime  Librarian,  Union  The- 
ological Seminary,  New  York.  [Now  Ready. 

KINGS.     [A  uthor  to  be  announced.] 

CHRONICLES.  The  Rev.  EDWARD  L.  CURTIS,  D.D.,  Professor  of 
Hebrew,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn.  [Now  Ready. 


AND  N  EH  EM  I  AH.  The  Rev.  L.  W.  BATTEN,  Ph.D.,  D.D.,  Pro- 
fessor of  Old  Testament  Literature,  General  Theological  Seminary,  New 
York  City.  [Now  Ready. 

PSALMS.  The  Rev.  CHAS.  A.  BRIGGS,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  sometime  Graduate 
Professor  of  Theological  Encyclopaedia  and  Symbolics,  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York.  [2  vols.  Now  Ready. 

PROVERBS.  The  Rev.  C.  H.  TOY,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 
Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  [Now  Ready. 

JOB.  The  Rev.  G.  BUCHANAN  GRAY,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Mans- 
6eld  College,  Oxford,  and  the  Rev.  S.  R.  DRIVER,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  sometime 
Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Oxford.  [2  vols.  Now  Ready, 


THE  INTERNATIONAL  CRITICAL  COMMENTARY 


ISAIAH.  Chaps.  I-XXVIL  The  Rev.  G.  BUCHANAN  GRAY,  D.D.,  Pro- 
fessor of  Hebrew,  Mansfield  College,  Oxford.  [Now  Ready. 

ISAIAH.  Chaps.  XXVin-XXXIX.  The  Rev.  G.  BUCHANAN  GRAY,  D.D. 
Chaps.  LX-LXVI.  The  Rev.  A.  S.  PEAKE,  M.A.,  D.D.,  Dean  of  the  Theo- 
logical Faculty  of  the  Victoria  University  and  Professor  of  Biblical  Exegesis 
in  the  University  of  Manchester,  England. 

JEREMIAH.  The  Rev.  A.  F.  KIRKPATRICK,  D.D.,  Dean  of  Ely,  sometime 
Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Cambridge,  England. 

EZEKIEL.  The  Rev.  G.  A.  COOKE,  M.A.,  Oriel  Professor  of  the  Interpre- 
tation of  Holy  Scripture,  University  of  Oxford,  and  the  Rev.  CHARLES  F. 
BURNEY,  D.Litt.,  Fellow  and  Lecturer  in  Hebrew,  St.  John's  College, 
Oxford. 

DANIEL.  JAMES  A.  MONTGOMERY,  Ph.D.,  S.T.D.,  Professor  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Pennsylvania  and  in  the  Philadelphia  Divinity  School. 

[Now  Ready. 

AMOS  AND  HOSEA.  W.  R.  HARPER,  Ph.D.,  LL.D.,  sometime  President 
of  the  University  of  Chicago,  Illinois.  [Now  ready. 

MICAH,   ZEPHANIAH,    NAHUM,   HABAKKUK,   OBADIAH   AND  JOEL. 

Prof.  JOHN  M.  P.  SMITH,  University  of  Chicago;  W.  HAYES  WARD,  D.D., 
LL.D.,  New  York;  Prof.  JULIUS  A.  BEWER,  Union  Theological  Seminary, 
New  York.  [Now  ready. 

HAGGAI,  ZECHARIAH,  MALACHI  AND  JONAH.  Prof.  H.  G.  MITCHELL, 
D.D.;  Prof.  JOHN  M.  P.  SMITH,  Ph.D.,  and  Prof.  J.  A.  BEWER,  Ph.D. 

[Now  Ready., 

ESTHER.  The  Rev.  L.  B.  PATON,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Hart- 
ford Theological  Seminary.  [Now  Ready. 

ECCLESIASTES.  Prof.  GEORGE  A.  BARTON,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Bibli- 
cal Literature,  Bryn  Mawr  College,  Pa.  [Now  Ready. 

RUTH.  SONG  OF  SONGS  AND  LAMENTATIONS.  Rev.  CHARLES  A. 
BRIGGS,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  sometime  Graduate  Professor  of  Theological  Ency- 
clopaedia and  Symbolics,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

»T.  MATTHEW.    The  Rev.  WILLOUGHBY  C.  ALLEN,  M.A.,  Fellow  and 
Lecturer  in  Theology  and  Hebrew,  Exeter  College,  Oxford.        [Now  Ready. 

ST.  MARK.     Rev.  E.  P.  GOULD,  D.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  New  Testa- 
ment Literature,  P.  E.  Divinity  School,  Philadelphia.  [Now  Ready. 

ST.  LUKE.    The  Rev.  AURED  PLUMMER,  D.D.,  late  Master  of  University 

College,  Durham.  [Now  Ready. 


THE  INTERNATIONAL   CRITICAL   COMMENTARY 


ST.  JOHN.  The  Right  Rev.  JOHN  HENRY  BERNARD,  D.D.,  Bishop  of 
Ossory,  Ireland.  [In  Press. 

ACTS.  The  Rev.  C.  H.  TURNER,  D.D.,  Fellow  of  Magdalen  College, 
Oxford,  and  the  Rev.  H.  N.  BATE,  M.A.,  Examining  Chaplain  to  the 
Bishop  of  London. 

ROMANS.  The  Rev.  WILLIAM  SANDAY,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  sometime  Lady 
Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford,  and 
the  Rev.  A.  C.  HEADLAM,  M.A.,  D.D.,  Principal  of  King's  College,  London. 

[Now  Ready. 

I.  CORINTHIANS.    The  Right  Rev.  ARCH.  ROBERTSON,  D.D.,   LL.D., 
Lord  Bishop  of  Exeter,  and  Rev.  ALFRED  PLUMMER,  D.D.,  late  Master  of 
University  College,  Durham.  [Now  Ready. 

II.  CORINTHIANS.    The  Rev.   ALFRED   PLUMMER,   M.A.,   D.D.,   late 
Master  of  University  College,  Durham.  [Now  Ready. 

GALATIANS.  The  Rev.  ERNEST  D.  BURTON,  D.D.,  sometime  President 
of  the  University  of  Chicago.  [Now  Ready. 

EPHESIANS  AND  COLOSSIANS.  The  Rev.  T.  K.  ABBOTT,  B.D., 
D.Litt.,  sometime  Professor  of  Biblical  Greek,  Trinity  College,  Dublin, 
row  Librarian  of  the  same.  [Now  Ready. 

PHILIPPIANS  AND  PHILEMON.  The  Rev.  MARVIN  R.  VINCENT, 
D.D.,  sometime  Professor  of  Biblical  Literature,  Union  Theological  Semi- 
nary, New  York  City.  [Now  Ready. 

THESSALONIANS.  The  Rev.  JAMES  E.  FRAME,  M.A.,  Professor  of 
Biblical  Theology,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York  City. 

[Now  Ready. 

THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  The  Rev.  WALTER  LOCK,  D.D.,  Professor 
ef  Divinity  in  the  University  of  Oxford  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church. 

[Now  Ready. 

HEBREWS.  The  Rev.  JAMES  MOFFATT,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Hon.  M.A.,  Pro- 
fessor of  Church  History,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 

[Now  Ready. 

ST.  JAMES.  The  Rev.  JAMES  H.  ROPES,  D.D.,  Bussey  Professor  of  New 
Testament  Criticism  in  Harvard  University.  [Now  Ready. 

PETER  AND  JUDE.  The  Rev.  CHARLES  BIGG,  D.D.,  sometime  Regius 
Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford. 

[Now  Ready. 

THE  JOHANNINE  EPISTLES.  The  Rev.  E.  A.  BROOKE,  B.D.,  Fellow 
and  Divinity  Lecturer  in  King's  College,  Cambridge.  [Now  Ready. 

REVELATION.  The  Rev.  ROBERT  H.  CHARLES,  M.A.,  D.D.,  sometime 
Professor  of  Biblical  Greek  in  the  University  of  Dublin.  [2  vols.  Now  Ready. 


5 


0 


3  1205  00370  6239 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FAC1UTY 


A     000994815     9 


